Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

WAR DAMAGE (INCREASE OF VALUE PAYMENTS) ORDER

11.6 a.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move,
That the War Damage (Increase of Value Payments) Order, 1947 (S.R. &amp; O., 1947, No. 390), dated 4th March, 1947, made by the Treasury under Section 11 (1) of the War Damage Act, 1943, a copy of which Order was presented on 6th March, be approved.

Mr. Molson: On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to what it will be in Order to refer to on this Order? You will appreciate that there are two different kinds of legislation dealing with compensation for the destruction of houses. The one arises under the War Damage legislation, which was the first legislation which was passed on this matter; and the other arises under the Town and Country Planning legislation which was passed in 1944, the subsequent year. This Order does deal with one of the difficulties that arise in cases where, under the War Damage Act, a certain payment would have been made, that is, payment for cost of works; but, owing to the impingement upon it of the Town and Country Planning legislation, and owing to the fact that there is no portability of cost of works, the payment which is made under the War Damage legislation is substantially reduced, if, under a planning scheme, the owner of the property is not able to rebuild on exactly the same site. This was referred to in the Report of the War Damage Commission, upon which the Order under discussion today is based. I am, therefore, asking you whether it will be in Order—and I suggest that it would be

convenient, if it were in Order—to refer to the importance of bringing the compensation payable under these two different trends of legislation into line.

Mr. Dalton: May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that, important though the matter is which the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has raised, it would be technically out of Order and practically inconvenient to discuss matters relating to cost of works payments on this Order. This is a narrower field, and I would submit to you that the right place to discuss the very important matter of portability of cost of works payments, as the jargon puts it, is on the Town and Country Planning Bill, when we have it before us. I submit that it would be out of Order here, and would confuse and complicate the discussion.

Mr. Molson: This matter has now been going on for a very long time. When we have tried to raise this matter on the Town and Country Planning legislation we have been told that it is out of Order to refer to matters which arise on the War Damage legislation; and now we are in the position, the completely anomalous position, where payments are made which do, in fact, result sometimes in very great injury to the subject under one piece of legislation. We have never been able to discuss this matter, and we urge that it is necessary for these lines of legislation to be brought into consistency with each other.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: While it may not be very convenient to discuss cost of works payments today, may I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Order we are about to discuss is based on the report of the War Damage Commission which, in paragraph 17, makes specific reference to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and rather ties up one of the payments we are going to consider to the Town and Country Planning Act. In these circumstances I do submit that this Debate will be unduly narrowed unless we are able to touch upon the subjects my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak has mentioned to you.

Mr. Medland: May I point out that the Commission's report deals very largely with converted value payments, and they agree that these would operate under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. Therefore, it would


be unfortunate if we cannot Debate these converted value payments.

Mr. Speaker: I must say that I feel I have a grievance. I have had no notice of this point. I should have liked to have had time to consider it, but it seems to me to be wrong that we should discuss that legislation under this Order. There was a suggestion by the last hon. Member who spoke that a passing reference could be made to legislation. It seems to me that we cannot discuss the War Damage Act on the basis of what valuation is made, but we can discuss the increases under the Order in comparison with existing legislation.

Mr. Molson: I apologise for not giving you notice, Mr. Speaker, but this really took place less than five minutes ago, when, to my astonishment, I learned that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to deal with this matter, which, I suggest, is more or less the kernel of the subject under discussion.

Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps it would be better to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity to make his statement.

Mr. Dalton: I would like to explain now, in view of the points of Order which have been raised, that I have no desire to avoid discussion of the particular matter mentioned. My view, however, was that, points of Order apart, it would be a little inconvenient to take it here this morning. The hon. Member for Drake (Mr. Medland) referred to the portability of these payments, which was what the hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Molson) raised, but the hon. Member also raised the question of converted value payments. These, of course, are within the Order, and, obviously, are suitable to be discussed, and I hope to say something more about them.
This is a very technical and even tedious topic, and I hope I shall not unduly bore the House if I try to make it plain. It is a question of great human interest, but it is also one of great tediousness, technicality and complexity. This Order, which hon. Members will no doubt have read, is consequential upon a report by the War Damage Commission, made at my request, and, as I said last December, I felt a very strong desire to settle this matter as soon as may be. I think we

have travelled far enough now from the end of the war when we should be able to end this state of things and when these payments could now be settled. I asked the War Damage Commission, who have performed a very fine service throughout this period and have done exceedingly good work with great devotion to duty, to be good enough to make it an urgent task to let me have a report on which I could take action designed to get this matter cleared up as quickly as possible for the benefit of those concerned. They made this report, and they made certain recommendations, which the Government accept, and their acceptance of them is embodied in this Order.
The War Damage Act prescribes two forms of payment for war damage to land and buildings, to which I will make reference, after having explained their relationship. If a property is worth repairing, having regard to the character of the property and the extent of the damage, a cost of works payment is due and is made when the work is done. That is the essential characteristic of the cost of works payment. It is paid when the work is done, and the War Damage Commission then pay the claimant the actual cost, as approved by them.
By a Treasury direction made some time ago, all houses built since 1914 qualify for a cost of works payment, as they are assumed to be reasonably modern and in good condition, and, in addition, all older houses of equivalent quality qualify for the cost of works payment, however severe the damage done to them, unless, indeed, they represent a wasteful use of the site. By far the greater part of this whole field of war damage payments consists of cost of works cases, as distinct from value payments, and in round figures nearly 3,500,000 properties fall within the field of the cost of works payment. Those which fall within the value payment, with which this Order is concerned, are very much smaller. With the cost of works side this Order does not deal. I may say more about that when the Town and Country Planning Bill is before the House, when it will no doubt be found convenient to make further reference to this matter. There are also other occasions on which, no doubt, by the ingenuity of hon. Members, this matter could be discussed, but I do not think it would be in Order for me to pursue it much further now.
As distinct from the cases which I have been describing—where a cost of works payment is made when the work is done—in cases where, consequent upon enemy action, a property is a total loss, that is to say, it is not worth while to make good the damage, a value payment is due to be made. These value payments are the measure of the difference between the value of the property before damage and the value of what the bomb left behind, at 1939 prices. That has been the position up to now, and that is the position which this Order is amending.
For a long time, it has been common knowledge, and it has been admitted by all Ministers in successive Governments when they have had to deal with these things since the end of the war, that this basis of value payments would give quite inadequate amounts to those concerned, and a terrible word called "escalation" has crept into these discussions. I have used it myself on occasions, but I prefer to say increase.—[Interruption.] Yes, it is a word which has been used by me, but not coined by me. It is an ugly word with a certain pretentious sound, but, in fact, it means increase. It has been thought that an increase was required in these payments in the interests, of justice.
Section 11 of the War Damage Act placed upon the War Damage Commission the duty of dealing with this matter up to the point of making recommendations to the Minister. Section II required the War Damage Commission to consider at the proper time whether these value payments, on the basis prescribed in the Act, that is, the 1939 level, should, having regard to the movement of prices and other events in the interval, be increased, and, if so, by how much. I informed the House, with general approval, last December, that I thought the time had come when this action should be taken. The War Damage Commission, at my request, and with great promptitude made a unanimous report. There is no difference of view among the members of the Commission on this, and the unanimous report was published on 6th March. The Treasury Order now before the House, and for which I ask approval, carries out the recommendations of that report. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland are covered, in addition to England and Wales.
The Commission's principal proposal is that the value payments should be increased by 45 per cent.—that is, what is called an escalation, or an increase, of 45 per cent. In paragraph 16 of the report it states that only the broadest justice can be done in dealing with this larger aggregate of cases. We cannot take the cases one by one or district by district and say that this one should have a certain proportion and the other one a smaller proportion. In the interests of administration we have to get one single overall increase for this particular class, and so the so-called original value payments are all given a 45 per cent. increase. The War Damage Commission in their report say:
It has, however, been fundamental to the scheme of the War Damage Act from its inception that it was possible only to do broad justice as a whole over the immense field which it covers.

Mr. George Hicks: Is that 45 per cent. in addition to the 30 per cent.?

Mr. Dalton: No, it is over and above the 1939 figure. This is an overall increase—and I apologise for all the jargon that the lawyers have accumulated around this subject—and the Commission recommends a 45 per cent. increase, which is rough justice by and large, taking one type of house with another type and one district with another district. These original value payments, as distinct from the converted value payments, are the great majority and they are dealt with in Article 3 of the Order which carries out the recommendation of the War Damage Commission for the 45 per cent. increase.
By a converted value payment I mean a payment converted from a cost of works payment to a value payment. There are a much smaller group than the original value payments with which I have dealt, and they come into payment under Section 14 of the War Damage Act. This is where the damage has not been made good and cannot be made good because the property has been compulsorily acquired or is to be compulsorily acquired by some public authority, by a local authority engaged in replanning its area or by a Government Department. Where the land on which this damaged structure stands is compulsorily acquired we have a case which would otherwise qualify for a cost


of works payment, but the work is not done and a converted value payment becomes due. The proposal here is—and I do not wish to speak at any great length, for the Solicitor-General will follow up any points with which I have inadequately dealt—that there should be a larger increase in those particular cases, and the increase that is recommended for the converted value payment cases is that it should not be less than 60 per cent.: or any other figure as provided for the purposes of the maximum supplement under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. Therefore, Article 4 of the Order provides 60 per cent. for these cases.
In Article 5 of the Order, there is a reference to a very small class of case which arises under Section 13 of the War Damage Act. I will not elaborate those cases, but if hon. Members desire further elaboration of this the Solicitor-General will give it. I could give it, but I do not want to continue too long on this exposition. In this class of case, which is small in point of numbers, the Commission have discretion to pay what they think is a fit amount subject to the maximum laid down in Section 13 of the Act. Paragraph 19 of the report suggests that they should be given a discretion to increase this amount by not more than the percentages recommended in the two cases of the original value payment and the converted value payment, and that is implemented by Article 5 of the Order before the House.
With regard to the interest on these value payments, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, other things being equal, wishes to pay this off as soon as possible, and, therefore, incur nothing for any additional liability for interest. That is the obvious point of view to have in mind, but under the War Damage Act interest is payable at 2½ per cent. on the value payment for the period between the date of the bomb and the date of the payment. This interest will be payable on the whole of the value payment as now increased whether original or converted.

Mr. Alpass: rose—

Mr. Dalton: I would rather not be interrupted. Is that not quite clear? If it is not I will repeat it. The interest will be paid at 2½ per cent. on the total sum including the increase of 45 or 60

per cent. from the date of the bomb to the date of the payment.

Mr. Alpass: But will Income Tax be deducted from the increase?

Mr. Dalton: The interest is subject to Income Tax, and those people getting interest will have to pay the Income Tax.

Mr. Alpass: But surely some people will not have to pay?

Mr. Dalton: That is the answer. The only people who will not pay Income Tax on the interest are the people whose total income is not large enough to make them liable. If the people are rich enough they will pay. That can be discussed again on the Budget if necessary, but the point is extraordinarily simple. Interest is unearned income, and it is subject to Income Tax like any other unearned income.
The approximate total amount of the original value payments at 1939 prices was £100 million. This has now been increased by 45 per cent., which makes it £145 million. The total to be paid will be a little bit larger than that because a number of assessments may yet be raised as a result of the discussion and negotiations going on. I think it would be safe to say that the grand total of the original value payment allowing for the 45 per cent. increase will be within a maximum of 150 million. This does not include converted value cases, and it is not possible to give an estimate of what that amount will be because it will be spread over years. From time to time premises will be acquired by local authorities and it is not possible to say what the total of them will be. It will depend upon the plans of local authorities, the approval of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and the speed with which the work is carried out. But over a period of years the amount will be substantially smaller figure than the figure I have given for the original value payments inasmuch as the number of cases will be relatively small.
I am anxious to do all I can to speed up this process of liquidation, and I will do all I can administratively in that direction. There are about 200,000 properties which have been classified by the War Damage Commission as qualifying for original value payments, 170,000 of these being dwelling houses.


Contiguous properties in the same ownership have been grouped together by the Commission to form a single value payment unit. If two houses are side by side they can be grouped together for a single payment unit and by this method 200,000 cases have been reduced to 150,000 value payment units. Therefore, for practical purposes 150,000 cases have to be dealt with. The Commission have already issued a formal determination of values in nearly 130,000 of these cases out of 150,000. The remaining 20,000 are now in course of being handled by the Commission.
Claimants have 60 days after the formal determination in which they can appeal against the Commission's figures. The number of appeals so far is not very large, which suggests that the Commission have done the job pretty well, and 105,000 determinations have already become final. I strongly urge on claimants to let the Commission have their views on the Commission's provisional figures with as little delay as possible, and I hope hon. Members who have any of these cases in their constituencies will appeal to their constituents who have such claims. If they do not act quickly the responsibility for delay rests not upon the Government, nor upon the War Damage Commission, but upon the persons concerned. They should "buck up," and should be encouraged by their Parliamentary representatives to "buck up" in putting in an appeal if they wish to make one. I will do my best to speed the process, but it may make a considerable difference to the final speed of settlement if we can get a quick response from all those concerned.
Nothing is said in the Order about when the value payments will actually be made. The Act leaves this to be settled by a separate instrument, that is, by Treasury Regulations made under Section 22 (1) (b) of the Act. I made it clear to the House in December last, and I have repeated it in reply to Questions recently, that it is my hope and desire to get all these payments made within this calendar year, before the end of December, 1947. As I have said, I am partly dependent on the co-operation of those entitled to the payments, but that is what I shall seek to do. The War Damage Commission, as is their duty, in paragraph 2 of the report which is before the House, draw

attention to the difficulty of speeding this process beyond a certain point. I have already observed to them that I am glad they have warned us of the difficulties, and I am confident they will now cooperate with us in order to surmount the difficulties which they have clearly pointed out and will get the payments made as soon as administratively possible. If Parliament approves this Order today, as I hope it will, the necessary work of calculation can start at once, because that will give approval to the percentages indicated and the arithmetic can be begun, and we will carry through the next stages with all possible speed.
In nearly half the cases, the speed with which the Commission will be able to complete the preparations for payment will depend primarily on the owners themselves. I have spoken of the need for speed in lodging an appeal if an appeal is thought desirable, but, over and above that, there are many cases where two or more persons are interested in a single payment, and they should get together on the question of how the payment should be divided between them. It is most desirable that, wherever possible, agreement should be reached between the persons entitled as to the basis on which the division should be made, and the Commission should be informed.
As soon as this House has decided whether to approve the Order, the Commission will begin to distribute to owners, where there are two or more persons entitled, forms on which they can advise the Commission of the agreed division of the total sum due. Until the forms are received back by the Commission properly completed, the Commission cannot take any other steps. They will be dependent upon agreement between those entitled. Where the persons concerned cannot agree among themselves there is, as the House will know, a procedure laid down. They can refer the issue to the War Damage (Valuation Appeals) Panel which has been set up for this purpose, or in Scotland there is provision for a referee. The War Damage Commission themselves cannot give any advice on the division of the payment between the persons entitled; it is outside their scope, and this other procedure has been laid down to deal with it. I hope that in most cases there will be a voluntary agreement, but where voluntary agreement cannot be reached I


hope this prescribed procedure for determining the matter will be followed by the parties as quickly as possible.
I think that is all I need say on the subject at this stage. The larger matters, to which reference was made at the beginning of this discussion, will, no doubt, come up at a later stage; I am asking the House today to approve this relatively simple matter, and I hope the House will think that the Government have acted with speed and justice to those concerned.

11.36 a.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is unfortunate that we should be having this Debate today without first having had an opportunity of debating those larger matters to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just referred. We have, in fact, sought an opportunity on many occasions. We sought an opportunity on the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill, and we were asked to defer discussion until a later date, which was rather a promise, I would not say of "jam tomorrow," but of some satisfactory announcement to be made. We are still waiting for that. In its absence, it is not very easy to place the consequences of this Order in their correct perspective, but I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there is no desire to avoid discussion, and I hope, following upon that assurance, that he will go a little further and say that when we do discuss this matter there will be a full and proper opportunity for Debate upon it and not one likely to be cut short by the operation of the Guillotine.
Members on both sides of the House and, I suspect, the Members of the Liberal Party, who are not with us—of course, I have no authority to speak on their behalf—will, I am sure, not dispute for one moment that there is a clear and convincing case for the increase of value payments, and that those payments, if made now solely by reference to 1939 prices without any increase, would be inadequate, unjust and unfair. If 1939 prices were paid now or in the future, that dearly would not be compensation in the true sense of the word, although we have had occasion to complain that the right hon. Gentleman does occasionally use the words "fair compensation" to mean something considerably less than the loss suffered. But with regard to war

damage cases, one must accept the principle of valuation by reference to some prewar date. It would be quite impossible for any valuer to go along now to a site and say what is the present day value of a building which stood on that site in 1942 and has since been destroyed. He could not express any reliable opinion now. He might form some estimate from the plans, but they would not show the condition of the building, and so in the case of value payments it must be conceded that one must go back to base one's valuation upon some value prewar.
I mention that because I want to point out the distinction that does exist between acceptance of this principle in the case of war damage payments and its acceptance at the present time as a basis for valuation with regard to the acquisition of existing buildings. By not dissenting from this Order it would not be right to assume in any way that we now accept the principle, that with regard to compulsory acquisition of buildings 1939 prices are the right standard. I mention that because I want to make it quite clear that that argument cannot prevail, and cannot be used properly against us on a future occasion.
If, in the case of these war damage value payments and converted value payments, the 1939 prices have to be referred to, and are by themselves inadequate, two questions remain for consideration. The first, of course, is: What should the increases be? The second is: When will the payments be made? With regard to the converted value payments—the nature of which the right hon. Gentleman has, if I may say so, most clearly explained—one must concede that it is a most difficult matter to arrive at a conclusion as to what the increase should be. It would seem here that the War Damage Commission have felt themselves in considerable difficulty, and have, rather like the Minister of Town and Country Planning in respect of another Bill, arbitrarily assessed what is in their view the right increase; and they have been largely affected by the 60 per cent. supplement given now to owner-occupiers under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. Indeed, they envisage that if that 60 per cent be increased, then this payment of converted values should also receive a similar increase. The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about that. We would have liked to hear him give some


indication that, if there is delay in making these converted value payments, and if there is an increase—we do not know—from 60 per cent. in cases under the Town and Country Planning Act, a corresponding increase will be made in regard to these converted value payments.
The War Damage Commission pointed out that there was no possibility here of discriminating between the various types of ownership. I must point out that this, though it is quite clearly the case under the War Damage Act, will result in an anomaly—it may be unavoidable—in that some recipients of the converted value payments will receive more than the persons who possess buildings at the present time, but who do not come within the wide definition of "owner-occupier" under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and who will, therefore, not be entitled to 60 per cent. on the compulsory acquisition. I hope I have made that quite clear. If one looks at it from one angle the result will be that some persons who have been hit by Hitler will, in the result, suffer a lower financial loss than persons who are hit by compulsory acquisition under Socialist Measures passed by His Majesty's Government. As I say, that may be unavoidable. Whether it can be avoided or not may, and I hope will, depend upon the discussions we have with regard to compulsory acquisition generally, and the price at which that should take place. However, I must point out that there is a distinct anomaly which will prejudice some people whose buildings are subject to compulsory acquisition.
Again, I must point out this, too. The people who get these converted value payments will clearly not be getting as much money as if they were receiving a cost of works payment. Therefore they, too, are suffering, in one sense, some financial loss by reason of the compulsory acquisition of their property. So that from two angles this creates anomalies. They may be unavoidable, but I hope investigation will be made to see whether the first anomaly to which I have referred can be eradicated. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that the converted value payments were likely to be small in extent compared with the cost of works payments. He made reference to the date of payment of original value payments. But the converted values payments are likely to

continue, as I understand it, for a good many years to come. Under the measures now under consideration the amount of compulsory acquisition is likely to increase.
It would appear to me to follow that the number of converted value payments which will have to be made will also increase substantially. That I infer to be one of the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman could not give any approximation of the total figures to which those payments would amount. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that, in so far as it is now possible to determine the converted value payments, those payments should also be made at the earliest possible date. I was not quite clear from his statement whether, in cases where it is possible, those payments would also be made—

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps I might give an answer to that now. We have no desire to hold up these converted value payments any more than the original value payments. As soon as they can be determined they shall be paid. The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that a lot are dependent upon future events over the next few years, which we obviously cannot determine now. There is no intention to delay at all, as soon as the thing can be brought to an end.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am much obliged for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance upon that point. With regard to the other increased payments, the increase is again arrived at rather arbitrarily. It is assessed at 45 per cent. Again one appreciates that it may be, and probably is, quite impossible to do otherwise than fix a figure of that nature. The Commission expressed the view that the percentage increase was doing substantial justice; and elsewhere they use the expression "broadest justice." With regard to the use of that jargon which the right hon. Gentleman so wrongly attributed to lawyers—and I am sure the learned Solicitor-General will support me in this—the word "escalation" first fell in this House from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman, and not from the lips of any lawyer; and the other words he used are, surely, Civil Service jargon, for I have never heard them fall from the lips of a lawyer. No doubt we shall hear what the learned Solicitor-General has to say about that." Broadest


justice" does have a significance to lawyers, in that it means an admission that justice cannot be done in a great many cases and that there will be a considerable number of cases of injustice. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that that must be the consequence of this Order. It may again be unavoidable, but in so far as this Order is definitely an attempt to do more justice than is done under the present law it has our approval.
I should like here to say a word about interest. No one would dispute that where interest on these value payments has to be paid by the right hon. Gentleman, then, if the individual's income is so large as to attract Income Tax, the interest should also be liable to Income Tax at the appropriate rate for the year.

Mr. Dalton: indicated assent.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: But I understand from the report that the tax is deducted before payment. Does it follow that those who do not come within the incidence of Income Tax will have opportunities to recover the sums deducted, and will they be informed of their rights? From the attitude of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) I think that this was the point he wished to raise, and it is very important. A great many of these people are not experts in Income Tax, and I do ask that they should be informed of their rights at the time when these value payments are made to them.

Mr. Dalton: There are two separate points, and in case there is any doubt perhaps I may deal with them now. First there is the question of liability to pay. That is determined by the amount of income, the family estate of the taxpayer and so on. Then there is the question of the mode of payment. From the administrative point of view, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated, it would obviously be much simpler if Income Tax were deducted from the total payment made. It is also clear that in many cases—although by no means all—the recipient will be entitled to reclaim all or part of the Income Tax by reason of his income being below the level at which standard rate applies. The question as I see it is—this tax being agreed as I understand it is—whether there will be a means by which we shall let those concerned

have full and early information as to their right to reclaim. I think I can give an assurance that this will be so although the exact method to be adopted will be a matter for discussion with the War Damage Commission. I have, naturally, no desire to retain this Income Tax.

Mr. Speaker: I think we are on delicate ground on this matter. Income Tax cannot be amended by this Order but only by the Finance Bill, so that the point is out of Order. With regard to the other point as to whether instructions can be given, that can be dealt with under the Order.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: That was the point to which I was directing my observations because it is so important in these cases that the people should be informed of their rights. Incidentally, I was not for a moment suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking wrongfully to retain this Income Tax.
I come now to the date of payment. There are 105,000 original value cases which have been finally determined, as I understand it. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us how many of those are cases where only one individual is concerned in receiving the money. One appreciates from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that where there are two interests involved there may still have to be some slight delay pending agreement between those interests, but a number of them must be cases where there is a single interest involved. I think it may be assumed from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that directly this Order is approved payment of those cases which have been concluded and in which one interest is involved will take place forthwith.

Mr. Dalton: I do not want to deceive the hon. and learned Gentleman or the House. They must not press me too far on this. I have said several times that it is my hope to have the whole thing settled within this calendar year, but the War Damage Commission has pointed out a number of difficulties and there is, of course, a question of chattels which does not come under this Order. We are liquidating the question of chattels, and I cannot give such an undertaking as the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, but will merely say that they will get on with this as quickly as the condi-


tions of their work permit, hoping to conclude the whole thing within the present calendar year. I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should be the last person to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should raise expectations which could not be realised, but we are glad to have his assurance that these matters will be dealt with as speedily as possible, because I am sure that both sides of the House will agree that it is a great hardship on these people to have to go on waiting before they receive the value payment which would enable them to re-establish themselves in the manner in which they were living before the war or before their premises were damaged. I think I have covered all the points in this Order except to say that I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make it quite clear that if his payments are delayed for some reason they do extend to the original value payments after 1947. If, as we know will be the case, there are converted value payments after 1947, or there is a further inflation, or further depreciation in the value of money, I should like an assurance that in those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to introduce a further Order of this sort. The necessity for that, will, of course, be avoided if payments are made promptly.

Mr. Dalton: Again, I do not want to deceive the hon. and learned Gentleman. I can give no such assurance. I am making a recommendation, the Order is before the House, and, as I have said, we will endeavour to dispose of the matter within the present calendar year.

11.57 a.m.

Mr. Medland: In the first place I should like to say how very glad I am to find that the long drawn out battle extending from 1942 until the present time is now being brought to something approaching a conclusion. From the day when the bombs fell on many of our blitzed and devastated areas—and people had an opportunity of ascertaining where they stood with respect to the damage that had been showered upon them—until today, there has been a great sense of injustice among the people who suffered. From that period, throughout the days of the Coalition Government, then the Care-

taker Government, and finally the present Government, representations were continually being made with regard to the effect of the assessment which had been made upon war damage.
War damage has been divided into two parts. Where properties which were built before 1914, and designated as old properties, have suffered damage, they were concluded to have been entitled to what is known as a value payment. Where damage had occurred to properties built after 1914, these were adjudged to be worth a cost-of-works payment. In other words, a new building would be put up in the place of that which had been knocked down, but where the original building was erected before 1914 only a value payment would be received which was based on the value as it was in 1939. Many of the bombs fell in 1941. The 1939 standard was adopted. and the result was that persons who lost the property in which they were living—I am speaking, not of business premises, the owners of which had much better facilities to recoup themselves, but of the hundreds of thousands of single property owner-occupiers who lost their properties in the blitzed cities—the valuation, if their house was built before 1914, was a value payment. The buildings were valued, the land was valued, and the war damage was paid upon the assessable value of the buildings in 1939 This Order increases the payment to those people by 45 per cent. It is not what could be called a generous contribution to the people who suffered this disability.
The position was further complicated by the passing of other legislation, and by its being laid down that where, as a result of war damage, the local authority, the Admiralty or a Government Department decided that they required the property in the interests of the better planning of a city, where a man was entitled to a new house, or a cost-of-works payment, the cost-of-works payment was to be taken away, and he was to be given a value payment. That was what was called a converted value payment. This happened under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. Therefore, there were in blitzed areas persons with whom the local authorities were not going to interfere who were getting a cost-of-works payment—a new house for an old one—but in other cases where the local authority was going to take over the property


and use it in a planning scheme, the man would get, not a cost-of-works payment, but a value payment based on 1939 prices. That was the greatest injustice of all. I must tell the Chancellor how very grateful we are—and what a load it will lift off the backs of these people—to know that, as from the date of this Order, they will receive a 60 per cent. increase in the payment that is to be made to them. On behalf of thousands of people in the blitzed areas, I want to express appreciation for this Order, which is the result of a very long battle. When the Chancellor said that he was going to use the provisions of the War Damage Act to call upon the War Damage Commission to review the matter, I knew that we had won our battle, because I could not see how the Commission could come to any other decision, in face of the position which I have so inadequately described.
We have their report before us. Reference has already been made to one point in that report, and it is a point with which I disagree. A very real injustice is being done to persons who have suffered not as a result of their own negligence or anything for which they could be held to be responsible, but as a result of enemy action. I am going to talk about mortgage payments. I do not admit that you are giving justice to these people if you refuse to take into consideration the circumstances under which they have laboured from the time the bomb fell.
What are those circumstances? There are hundreds of building societies in this country. Ordinary working folk, the best of the people of this country, the thrifty people, the people who begin early in their married life to make provision for the time when they will retire, have taken up a mortgage on their own house so that, when they retire, they will have a dwelling to live in and will be free from the burden of rent. They are some of the best people in this country, the people who never come on to public assistance; they are the people affected by this Order. They took out a mortgage at 4½ per cent., and in some instances, 5 per cent., on the balance of the payment for their house. All through the period during which they have not had the use of their house, they have had to pay mortgage interest, and what is more, they have had to pay it on something which was not there. They had to seek other accommodation. Imagine what

happened in a devastated town like my own, where 4,000 houses out of 34,000 were totally destroyed in six weeks. That meant that accommodation was almost impossible to get. What happened was that where one family lived before, three and four families were living. The rent they had to pay was out of all proportion to the accommodation they got. Not only had they to pay mortgage interest, but they had to pay rent—and an inflated rent at that—as well for the houses in which they lived. I could tell the Chancellor of cases in which some of the people in my district had to go and live in sheds—

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is reverting to criticisms of the War Damage Act, which cannot be amended by this Order. He is going back to the original Debate when the Act was passed.

Mr. Medland: I am sorry, Sir. It is stated in paragraph 15 of the War Damage Commission's Report that they would have no regard for consequential losses. I was trying to describe consequential losses. I think I have described them, Sir, so I will leave that point.

Mr. Speaker: I do not see that consequential losses are in the Order; they may be in the White Paper.

Mr. Medland: A mere layman reading the White Paper has some difficulty in understanding the Order. However, I wish to conclude by asking the Chancellor three questions. Can he tell me whether the uplift provided by the Order—the 45 per cent. and the 60 per cent.—will apply to land that is compulsorily acquired, land which is the site of a value payment on the building, or a converted value payment? Second, will it apply to land which is the site of undamaged property? Third, will it apply to any damaged building not owner-occupied? I would like to say how grateful we are for the promise that payment will be made this year. We have waited since 1941 for some kind of rough justice to be done to hundreds of thou-thousands of people, and I must say that the War Damage Commission have treated applicants with the greatest consideration, and have met them in every possible way. We say, "Thank you," to them, and we ask the Chancellor to speed up the good work by making payments this year as early as he can.

12.12 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: There is only one comment I have to make on the speech of the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland), and that is that I believe he made a slight mistake when he referred to the inflated rents which had been paid by people in his constituency. If those inflated rents were paid, surely, they could only have been paid to the tenant of the house and not to the landlord, because of the Rent Restrictions Acts.
I would like to refer to the Chancellor's speech, from which two very interesting general points emerge. The first was that the vast majority of properties which have been destroyed have qualified for a cost of works payment. The standard of that cost of works payment is, of course, high, and I hope that that disposes of the suggestion which we have heard put forward so often, that before the war most houses were slums. The figures show that the vast majority of those houses were houses of a high standard. Second, the Chancellor said that the total number of claims for value payments amounted to 200,000, and that the number of people who would be paid out, as a result of those claims, was about 150,000.

Mr. Dalton: It might be less, because they may have dispersed properties. I said that when contiguous properties and other cases were united the 200,000 might be reduced to 150,000.

Mr. Gammans: That shows how widely the ownership of properties is now dispersed in the community, and that some of the bogeys of landlordism are not quite so serious as I have heard the Chancellor suggest on more than one occasion.
I am sure that all Members will welcome this Order. The property owner has for so long been regarded as one of the untouchables of society that he is grateful for getting a bit of gristle where the rest of the community get their meat ration. I welcome the increased payment, because I represent a constituency which suffered very severely from war damage, and where 1939 values alone would have caused great hardship, if not actual ruin, to a very large number of thrifty people who invested their life's savings in property. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that, valuable

as this increase is, it is still very largely a hit or miss affair, because an increase in percentage can only be a hit or miss affair. In some cases, people will get more than their property was actually worth. But it is no good pretending that in most cases the money which the property owners will get will enable them to rebuild property equivalent in value or comfort to that which was destroyed. I suppose that it is impossible to do it now, but I would have liked to have seen the costs of works principle extended, so that the definition of a house which could come under the costs of works payment might have been a little bit wider.
I am sure that the Chancellor realises that this Order goes far beyond merely war damaged property. It concerns, as he said, the Town and Country Planning Bill, and, in fact, the acquisition of all private property by the State. It would be out of Order for me to refer to that any further, but I think there is one point to which I might refer, namely, the clause in that Bill which deals with war damaged property. On the Second Reading of the Bill, the Chancellor said that war damaged property would not attract a development charge. That is not strictly accurate, because if an owner extends the cubic capacity of his new building by more than 10 per cent. then it will attract a development charge. The difficulty which will face the Chancellor, and I think the owner of property, too, is that in many cases—

Mr. Speaker: Development charges do not come into this Order.

Mr. Gammans: I bow to your Ruling, Sir. The Chancellor said that he hoped to make his value payments this year, but he did not say what the effect of the payment of £145 million will be on the inflationary spiral of which he is so much afraid today. That is a considerable sum of money, and I seriously suggest that if he wants to lessen the danger of that inflation, at a time when he has a gap of £1,000 million between purchasing power and goods and services which can be purchased, he should provide additional facilities for the people affected here, and others, to invest this money in new houses. I hope that he and the Minister of Health will bear that point in mind. With these reservations, speaking on behalf of a much blitzed community, I very much welcome this Order.

12.20 p.m.

Mr. Berry: I would like to speak on behalf of a great blitzed area in South East London. In my borough, we have a greater proportion of owner-occupiers than in most places in the country. This civic spirit has been spread over a number of years by the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, the Woolwich Borough Council, and the Woolwich Equitable Building Society. A great work has been done in enabling the better type of worker to get a stake in the country. Whether I come in under that heading or not, when my future wife promised to marry me, I took steps to buy my own house. As my mother termed it, "I had got the bird, and I wanted to get the nest." I am happy to say that, in the language of to-day, I did not "get the bird."
Attention has been called by hon. Members to the hard cases that have ensued from the operation of the original Act. When I first read this Order, although I had nothing to do with gambling in my life, a phrase came to me which I believe is used by those whose form of charity consists in keeping bookmakers supplied with unlimited champagne. This is, "Any to come, glad of it." I am sure that this 45 per cent. will be a very real Godsend in a number of cases. Where it is open to criticism is that this increase does not enable people to replace the property which they have lost, but it goes a long way to meet the costs of the destruction. Like the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) I have had letters pointing out that when a man was paid the net 1939 determination and had paid off his mortgage, he would be left with a site value of only £50 or £60; Under this suggestion, the man will be between £200 and £250 in pocket. It seems to me that while this will not enable people to replace their houses, it will enable them to clear their mortgages, and also enable them to have a little bit in hand.
The hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland) has referred to the fact that the mortgage interest had to be paid right through. That was the case whenever one borrowed money. If one borrowed from the local authority under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act the interest had to be paid. All those authorities and bodies who waived the repayment on principle

during the war deserve commendation, whether they are local authorities, building societies or any other body who lent money. I regard today as a very happy occasion, because the hon. Member for East Woolwich and I have taken part in a considerable local movement which has rapidly spread in connection with war damage. My hon. Friend presented a petition to the House sometime ago and tried not unsuccessfully to get on the blind side of you, Sir. I think that it expresses the bonhomie with which you rule this House that he was allowed to go on as long as he did. The promoters of that petition will regard today as a red letter day, but they may regret that the red letter is slightly dimmed because at least 60 per cent. has not been granted. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the War Damage Commission in this connection. They have had a considerable job, which they have tried to do well.

12.25 p.m

Mr. Molson: The matter which I wish to raise has, I think, been very fully covered, especially by the very clear speech of the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland). I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember that, before the summer Recess, he made a conditional promise that this House would have an opportunity of discussing the whole of this matter. There is no question that in all matters of equity there must be a very close connection between the payments to be made under the Town and Country Planning legislation, where property is acquired or destroyed, by the planning authority, and what is done in the case of war damage payments.
I hope, therefore, that I shall be in Order if I point out that where this increase in payment is made under this legislation, certain anomalies are likely to arise if consequential changes are not made in the Town and Country Planning legislation. In this report, the War Damage Commission point out that compensation payable under the Town and Country Planning legislation differentiates between the owner-occupier and one who is a tenant in his property. In their report they mention that, but go on to say that for the purpose of this legislation they do not think a distinction can be drawn between the two. In the case of property which comes both under this Order and


under the Town and Country Planning legislation, there will be an anomaly in cases where there is a 60 per cent. increase under this Order, where it would not be obtainable under the Town and Country Planning legislation if that property did not come under this Order. I will not elaborate that point further.
I think that almost everyone who has spoken today has expressed the wish that the two lines of legislation shall be brought into harmony. I welcome this rough and ready way of bringing relief to persons who have suffered because of the impingement of Town and Country Planning legislation upon war damage. I have a constituent who had a shop in Sheffield, which was destroyed in the blitz, and it he had been allowed to rebuild on the old site in the way that he wished to do, he would have been entitled to draw a cost of works payment. Owing to the fact that he was not allowed to rebuild on the whole of that site, it becomes a converted value payment. Therefore, although 60 per cent. is probably not enough to make up the difference between the value of the property before the war and what it would cost to replace it at present building costs, this increase is a very substantial alleviation of the loss which he has sustained.
Like everyone else who has spoken today, I welcome the report so far as it goes. I am not quite convinced, after reading it, that these increases of 45 and 60 per cent. are really sufficient, in view of the great increase that has taken place in the cost of building. I take the general view, however, that where Parliament has appointed an expert Commission to go into these matters, and when it has investigated them and made a report, it is not convenient or wise for people without the same amount of knowledge to criticise the figure which has been arrived at.
There is one matter which I should like to put, and I shall not be surprised or aggrieved if the hon. and learned Solicitor-General is not able to answer the point on the spur of the moment. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, whereas value payments would be made as soon as possible, converted value payments would only be paid at the time when the land was compulsorily acquired. I would point out that, under the Town and Country Planning legislation, it is proposed that, in future there shall be

designation of land which is to be subject to compulsory purchase, and that that may be held up for a period of 10 years, or even for as long as 15 years, if an Amendment which has a bearing on it is accepted. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that it would be a very great hardship upon the owner of damaged property if he were unable to obtain compensation to which he would be entitled if it were compulsorily acquired, although he would still not be able to dispose of it freely because, what I call the "blight" of designation, has already been spread over it.
There is one further point, and in this matter I think that, perhaps, I stand alone, and that the whole House is against me. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that he is going to make these payments as soon as possible. I am greatly concerned about the damage of inflation, and when one considers the large number of very substantial payments which are being made by the Exchequer at the present time, in respect of a whole lot of matters, whether it be for nationalisation schemes, for war gratuities, for postwar credits, or for the chattel insurance payments, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the fact that it is proposed to pay this further £150 million at the present time seems to me to represent an increase in what he calls the "inflationary potential," which may even call into question the powers which he exercises, together with his many controls, to prevent an ungovernable increase in prices.
Last week, I asked him a supplementary question, and was very surprised to hear him say that his advisers inform him that there is not very much danger of inflation in these cases. It appears to me that, in the case of an individual who has lost his house, and whose house has not been rebuilt, which, of course, is the case in respect to the vast majority of houses which were destroyed during the war, that puts an additional purchasing power into that owner's hands, without, at the same time, providing him with the house. Here is another example of purchasing power being increased when, at the same time, there is no corresponding increase in the number of houses upon which such an owner would wish to spend the money. Therefore, I would have preferred that the amount of payment to be made should be determined as soon as


possible, but that the payment should, in fact, only be made as and when the claimant is able to rebuild the house or the property, or to acquire some alternative accommodation.
With those few remarks, I welcome this Order for what it sets out to do in difficult circumstances, which is, on broad lines, to bring a great alleviation to our fellow countrymen who have suffered these heavy losses in the war. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will fulfil what, I think, was his promise made in August, that there shall be an ample opportunity for ensuring that those whose property is acquired under the Town and Country Planning legislation shall, at any rate, not be worse treated than those who benefit under this Order.

12.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: I wish to intervene for a few moments to express, on behalf of Northern Ireland, my satisfaction with the proposition put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No matter how generous a Chancellor may be at any one time, there are always some hon. Members who want a little more, and I am afraid that I, on behalf of Northern Ireland, must plead guilty to that.
It is well known that we in Northern Ireland have had considerable damage done by enemy action. Linen mills have been destroyed, private property has been destroyed, and churches have been destroyed, but here we have the satisfaction of telling our people at home that they are going to receive a little larger compensation than was anticipated. I understand—and perhaps the Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—that this compensation is only to be paid in respect of enemy action. That, of course, leaves out the damage that has been caused by the War Office and Air Force occupation of many of the buildings in the country. Perhaps, at some time or other, the Chancellor will see his way to increase the 1939 valuation, on which, I think, all these claims for compensation are based, and will consider compensation for damage done by the Service occupation of buildings. Of course, that refers to England as well as Northern Ireland. A great deal of damage has been done by the occupation of our own troops and those of our Allies. Perhaps, at some time, something will be done in regard to that. In the meantime, I wish, on behalf of our people

at home, to express my great satisfaction at this increased compensation, and to express my hearty thanks for it.

12.38 p.m

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: I only wish to intervene to ask the hon. and learned Solicitor-General whether, in replying, he will endeavour to say something on the matter of mortgage interest, and its bearing on the matter of value payments. Some reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland) and by my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) to this very important matter, which has been a very heavy burden to a great number of owner-occupiers. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake referred to the fact that full interest payments had been made throughout by all these owner-occupiers carrying mortgages. I know I am right in saying that that is not—

Mr. Speaker: That is not affected by this Order in any way. It is not in the Order, and, indeed, I think that I ruled once before that it was out of Order to discuss the matter.

Mr. Chamberlain: I was only asking that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General should make some reference to the matter. If he will, I shall be very glad.

12.40 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: I am unable to join in the chorus of approbation with which this Order has been received today. I do not think that the victims of value payment terms will join in them either, but that they will rather incline to the view which I wish to present to the House. Some people may take the view in this case that half a loaf is better than no bread, but I am not satisfied to accept that principle.
The Order which we are discussing fails in two essentials. The first is that the proposed increase value payment does not compensate the recipients for the increase in values between the year 1939 and 1947. If the destroyed property had still been standing, it would have been worth much more than 45 per cent. over 1939 values. The Order fails, secondly, because it does not cover the difference in the value of bricks and mortar and the cost of labour between 1939 and the present day. As a matter of fact, in the report which is


before us, the Commissioners themselves say that those costs have gone up at least 100 per cent. I am therefore surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should come forward with a proposal limited to an increase of 45 per cent.
That proposal cannot be adequate to provide the people concerned with homes. These people had homes when the bombs fell, and very good homes. The homes were not old, as this report says. At the bottom of page 4 I read:
The value payment, however, is made in respect of the loss of an existing building and normally of an old building.
I submit that the bulk of the property covered by the value payment is in London. Much of it is in my own constituency, which was bombed as badly as, or even worse than, the constituency of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) or of the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland). Over 80 per cent. of the homes in my constituency were destroyed or damaged to a greater or less degree. The homes concerned were built largely at the beginning of this century and during the next 14 years, that is to say, from 1900 to 1914. Though just failing to qualify for a cost-of-works payment, the Treasury fought very hard to see that those homes did not come within the Treasury direction which permits well-built and well-maintained houses to qualify for cost-of-works payments. That may have been good bureaucratic administration but it was not good humanity. I can assure all hon. Members that houses of the same type which are still standing are excellent homes and will last for many a long day.
I appeal to the Chancellor to reconsider this matter. I feel certain that he will get repercussions from the victims, who will receive sums of money which will be most inadequate indeed. They will not be able to spend it on replacing their homes, and because of that fact inflation may be hastened.

Mr. Dalton: More money does not necessarily mean more inflation.

Mr. Molson: My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) is making a very interesting speech but I would like to point out that the Treasury direction to which he has referred provides

that, in addition to houses built after 1914, those built before 1914 might also be considered as qualifying for a cost-of-works payment.

Sir D. Robertson: In the cases which I have in mind and which occurred all over my constituency—particularly in Moyser Road—the houses were built between 1904 and 1907. Some were certified by the district valuer as qualifying for a cost-of-works payment under the Treasury direction when he went down there first of all. Because the great London County Council wanted those sites for the erection of temporary houses for 10 years, the War Damage Commission changed their mind. That was a grave wrong, which I challenged very vigorously at the time with the War Damage Commission, but I failed to carry my point. The houses were swept away, and temporary structures were put up in their place.
The point I am concerned about is that none of the people who are to receive 45 per cent. increase under the Order will be able to get a home, either by purchase at present values—which I think no one will deny—or by building. I do not think anyone will deny that statement either. I regard the present proposal as a bad compromise. My recollection is that the Chancellor said that it would cost a little over £1 million. I would be the last to suggest any wasting of public money, but justice should be done in this case. These people want homes and it is homes that they should have. I am speaking of the owner-occupier.
If it is right—and I would like the Chancellor to pay special attention to this point as it is most material—that the owner of a house which qualified for a cost-of-works payment and has now become compulsorily acquired by the local authority is to receive the 1939 value plus 60 per cent., why should the owner of a house in a place such as Moyser Road and entitled to a value payment, receive only the 1939 value plus 45 per cent.? Where can there be justice or justification in giving 60 per cent. increase in one case, where the value is easily ascertainable, and only 43 per cent. in the other? I suggest that it is only a sop that is being given to these owners of converted cost-of-works houses who suffer great hardship. They were told that their houses were to be rebuilt free of cost but now, because the


local authority have taken them over, they get 15 per cent more. Neither position is right. It is manifestly unfair to the value payment people to give them only 45 per cent., when the cost of rebuilding or purchase has gone up to such an extent.
For those reasons I assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that I do not propose to let this matter rest. I have been out of this House through illness for a considerable time; but an injustice is being done by this palliative of 45 per cent. Not one hon. Member who has spoken has attempted to justify it, and if the Solicitor-General, who, I believe, is to wind up the Debate, can justify it, I am sure hon. Members will be surprised. So will the public outside.

12.47 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): The proposals made by the Government have, as is manifest from the speeches that have been made, been well received. The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) struck rather a discordant note, I thought. He complains that the increase is not enough. The position is that Section 11 of the War Damage Act, 1943, gives a limited power. It enables the Commission to make a report if they think that 1939 prices are inadequate, and the Government can then make an Order, upon the receipt of that report. The Commission is limited to considering matters which have arisen since 1941, that is to say, since the passing of the War Damage Act, 1941. Therefore, the matter is not at large. The Government are exercising a limited power, given to them by Section 11. The hon. Gentleman complained that the increase was not enough. He had a mistaken impression that it is to cost something like £1 million. My right hon. Friend pointed out that the cost of the increase would be something like £45 million. The difference is rather material. Indeed, the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) was concerned lest the proposal of the Government might increase any inflationary tendency that might be apparent at the present time. It is really very difficult to please everybody. In my submission, the Government have taken a reasonable course in this proposal.
The War Damage Commission, a body of independent experts with the greatest possible experience of this class of matter, have accumulated much knowledge and

material on this subject. They have deliberated and prepared a report in which they make this particular recommendation as to increases. Why the Government should be expected to reject their report and to depart from the opinion of the independent experts and to go their own way I do not know. I submit that the Government have taken the only reasonable and sensible course. Every other hon. Member—the hon. Member for Streatham is the sole exception—has entirely endorsed the view which the Government have taken in this matter. The hon. Gentleman calls it half a loaf. It is a very substantial increase. These 60 per cent. and 45 per cent. increases are substantial on the previous prices and they will go a long way, as other hon. Gentlemen have pointed out, towards removing hardship which otherwise would have been caused.

Mr. Howard: As the Solicitor-General is basing his argument upon the report of the War Damage Commission, would he be good enough to quote the words in the report which recommend a 60 per cent. increase? The only words I can find are:
Not less than 60 per cent.

The Solicitor-General: Hon. Members will, no doubt, have read the report, which is based on this general proposition, that it is impossible, as matters stand, to do precise and exact justice; what the recommendations are designed to achieve, is to remove in some measure the hardship which exists. The hon. Member's comment has been made, and Members can consider it and the context in which the observation is made. The Commission say that it is quite impossible to make a differentiation between the types of buildings or between localities. If one wanted to do precise justice, one would have to make infinite refinements and subdivisions, which would be completely impracticable, and would make it impossible, as my right hon. Friend desires, as the House desires and as the country desires, to achieve some sort of finality in this matter.
My right hon. Friend's submission was that 1947 should be the year, if possible, which would see this matter wound up, but if we go on forever arguing, subdividing, reviewing and refining, that will be totally incapable of achievement. What the Commission say, is that as a matter of rough justice, we can try to


draw a line between those houses which are old, and houses which are "good houses", whether they are pre-1914 houses or whether they are not. The hon. Member for Streatham admitted the exception in the case of houses which were pre-1914, but which were, nevertheless, of a better type and were more solid in structure. What they have done is to put on one side the less solid and older houses, and on the other the newer and better houses, those which are more likely to last. In respect of older houses, they have said, broadly speaking, and quite sensibly, that 45 per cent. is a proper figure. With regard to the others, they have said that the proper figure should be 60 per cent., subject to the comment which has been made.
I do not want to discuss the report in detail. They say that 60 per cent. is the maximum addition permissible for the purposes of Section 13 houses. In that case, they may adopt 60 per cent. for the better houses.

Mr. Hicks: Not less than 60 per cent.

The Solicitor-General: We have adopted the figure of 60 per cent. It is not less than 60 per cent., and is, in fact, 60 per cent., except that where there is a discretion in regard to the amount of increases for the Section 13 cases, that increase may be anything up to 60 per cent.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) was concerned about the possibility of future acquisitions stretching away into the years to come. His fears are really unfounded. If he looks at the terms of Section 14, which converts cost-of-works payments into value payments where property is to be acquired compulsorily, he will see that when the work is done cost-of-works payments are made. Therefore, these cases will fall progressively out of the purview of the section. As time goes on, Section 14 will have less and less operation, and will apply to fewer buildings. I hope he will agree that his apprehensions on that score are not well-founded. The number will not continually increase as compulsory acquisition develops, but will progressively decrease as damage is made good.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the cost-of-works payments are to continue to be

made and the work is being done, then obviously there will not be a converted value payment. Assuming a certain Measure passes this Session, there will be wide areas subject to compulsory purchase. If that happens, there will be no cost-of-works payment for execution of works in an area subject to compulsory purchase in a period of 15 years. That is why I thought we should have converted value payments continuing for a long period of time.

The Solicitor-General: That is very much the same point which was raised by the hon. Member for The High Peak. The answer is to be found in Clause 17 of the Town and Country Planning Bill, which provides that if you apply for permission to carry out a development, and that permission is refused, then you can require the planning authority to buy it from you. I do not think the hon. and learned Member need have any fears on that score. He has raised the point, and it will be carefully considered.

Mr. Molson: It is an important point which has been discussed upstairs. Designation is not one of the things which entitles the owner to immediate compensation.

The Solicitor-General: We shall bear that point in mind. As I have said, the matter will be carefully considered.
The question of mortgages was ruled out of Order, but I think I shall be in Order in saying that we are simply dealing with compensation for war damage, and that it does not cover any loss which is other than a loss strictly within the terms of that definition. Mortgage interest is not a loss of that sort, and, this Order does not therefore relate to that type of loss. It has to be borne in mind that if you receive a converted value payment, or original value payment, you have the advantage of a lump sum, and as far as interest is concerned, you can discharge the interest then and there.
Hon. Members on both sides have raised the question of the relation of the payment of compensation, which has to be made under the terms of the War Damage Act, and the payment of compensation under Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Obviously, we do not consider the two in isolation. The one is


inter-related with the other, and both will be closely borne in mind.
I think I have traversed the various points that were raised. There were general expression of eulogy of the Order, and there were some expressions of disapproval. In so far as the expressions of disapproval are concerned, I hope the House will agree that I have answered them, in saying that we have no other course than that of following the recommendations made in this report by independent experts. We cannot get better advice than that, and this advice we have thought fit, in the circumstances, to follow. I would ask the House to approve the Order.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allay our fears with regard to the cost-of-works payments? I must accept the assurance—and I am grateful for it—that he will look into it. But on that account, and on the basis that there may be further inflation, I did ask the question: Can we take it that, if there is further depreciation in the value of money, there may be later on, in those unfortunate circumstances a further increase, as envisaged by the War Damage Commission Report?

Mr. Dalton: I have already given an answer. It is, "No, Sir." We are trying to finish this matter as quickly as we can.

1.1 p.m.

Mr. Howard: I want to take up one point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General have based themselves and their case on the fact that they are following the recommendations of this Commission, and I cannot accept that. It is, I submit, the duty of the Government to satisfy the House that the proposals in this Order are not merely not less adequate than any existing provisions, but that they are, in fact, wholly and fully adequate today. I submit that they have failed to do that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—I noted his words when he spoke—said that these proposals carried out the recommendations of the Commission's report. The learned Solicitor-General has repeated, that the proposals in this Order follow the recommendations of the report.
So far as the 45 per cent. in the generality of cases on "original" payments is concerned, that is true. The Commissioners make a perfectly clear and definite recommendation. I think the important point in those cases is the interpretation of the words in the Treasury directive:
Older houses of equivalent quality.
If that Treasury directive is interpreted in a liberal and reasonable spirit I think we will all agree that the houses which will come under the 45 per cent. will probably not be entitled to more. But it depends wholly on how that directive is interpreted. But so far as "converted" payments qualifying for the 60 per cent. are concerned, I do submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General are misleading the House when they say they are following the recommendations of the Commission. The recommendations of the Commission are perfectly clearly set out in the summary, and also in paragraph 17 of their Report. They say that this percentage—that is the original percentage—
should not be less than 60 per cent.
Not less than 60 per cent. is a very different thing from a fixed maximum figure of 60 per cent. In the Treasury Order there is the fixed figure of 60 per cent., which, admittedly, is the minimum; but it is also a fixed amount and therefore a maximum. The reason why the Commissioners recommended not less than 60 per cent. is made perfectly clear in their report. They point out in paragraph 9 that building costs have gone up, in their experience, not less than 100 per cent. They point out that these payments have got to be based on the assumption that there will be vacant possession. In paragraph 13 of their report they say:
We are informed by the Valuation Office—
which, I think I am right in saying, comes under the Chancellor's authority—
that, in the heavily war damaged districts, the sales with vacant possession of those 'not good' houses which if severely damaged would probably attract a value payment now—
that is at the time of their Report—
indicate an average increase of between 65 per cent, and 70 per cent.
That is a statement of their view; and yet we are asked to accept as satisfactory, as just and adequate, a fixed maximum of 60 per cent. in place of their


definite recommendation of not less than 60 per cent. I am sorry if I must be a lone voice, but I cannot, for myself, accept that the provisions of this Order are adequate. I believe that it is the obligation of the Government to show that they are adequate, and that they have failed to do so.

1.6 p.m.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Like most other speakers in this Debate, I do, on the whole, welcome this Order in so far as it attempts to bring about a fairer basis of payments than was originally the case under Section II of the Act of 1943. Above all, I welcome the statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these value payments will be made—or he hopes they will—before the end of the calendar year. I possibly take a slightly less sanguine view of the financial position than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I must say that there is no question that, with every month that goes by, these improvements will become less and less valuable. I am glad that there is now, at last, some finality over this matter. My constituency, mercifully, has avoided the war damage which many other constituencies have suffered in this country. But I am surprised, even in my own constituency, at the number of people who are suffering real hardships today as a result of the nonpayment of these claims to date.
The chief hardship usually occurs where people are paying a mortgage interest and receiving no rent. I have also been surprised to see the number of people of very moderate means who own this type of property who were very largely dependent on the rents which they received for their incomes and to pay their mortgage interest. I should like to ask one question, and that is whether the mortgage interest which is—

The Solicitor-General: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If I understood Mr. Speaker correctly, he ruled reference to mortgage interest as not being within the scope of this Debate and out of Order. It was for that reason that, when I was replying, I did not deal with that subject.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Mr. Speaker gave that Ruling

and I cannot allow the noble Lord to continue his argument.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: If I had been allowed to continue I should have shown that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during his remarks, did show that those value payments would have interest added to them at the rate of 2½ per cent. on which Income Tax would be payable. I was going to ask whether mortgage interest which had been paid could be written off against this interest.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker has already ruled that that is not permissible, and, therefore, no answer can be given by the Solicitor-General.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will bear that point in mind.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the War Damage (Increase of Value Payments) Order, 1947 (S.R. &amp; O., 1947, No. 390), dated 4th March, 1947, made by the Treasury under Section 11 (1) of the War Damage Act, 1943, a copy of which Order was presented on 6th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — DOG RACECOURSE BETTING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

1.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Government, when considering the steps that should be taken in order to maintain and increase production, came to the conclusion, which was subsequently confirmed by their negotiations with both sides of the industry, that one of the best ways of doing this would be to arrange for what is known as the double shift system of working over a wide range of industry. Put colloquially, I understand that that means that there will be two shifts in many productive industries, one starting at 6 a.m. and ending at 2 p.m., when the second shift will commence, and will end at 10 p.m. It will be recollected that I asked the House a few days ago, in order to help us with that arrangement, to agree to an alteration of summer time legislation. The House was good enough to do that, and with the assistance of another place, that Measure has received the Royal Assent. We now come to a further proposal which we wish to submit to the House.
The Government have, from time to time in recent months—and I know that, on occasions, the same representations were made in the days of the Coalition Government—received complaints from certain managers and others in the essential industries that substantial absenteeism has been caused by mid-week sporting events. I would be very reluctant at ordinary times to do anything that so fundamentally interfered with the liberty of the subject as to attempt Governmental interference with these arrangements for recreation and relaxation. The history of Governmental interference in this way during the Middle Ages is not one that inspires one with very much confidence in the feasibility of coercing people into regulating their lives in this way against their own desires, and, therefore, I was deputed by the Government, with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of

Fuel and Power, to meet the representatives of the principal organisations which run sporting events during the week.
We found—and I want to repeat what I have said in answer to Questions in the House—the utmost readiness on the part of the bodies governing the various sports and recreations of the country to meet our wishes in the matter In fact, I can say that one or two of them even went beyond what we were inclined to ask, and I am very grateful to them for the way in which they nave endeavoured, through their influence with the various local organisations, to make these arrangements effective. I think the statement made on behalf of the Football Association last Sunday evening over the wireless represented at its best what the Government desired to secure. Where there are substantial congregations of persons, who would otherwise be engaged in productive industry, at sporting events, not as participants but as spectators, we thought we might reasonably ask at this time that these pleasures should be foregone and should be confined to the week-ends. We have no desire to interfere with people who are getting recreation by participating in sports, or by games played by young people in connection with schools and other organisations.
The one form of pastime—and I hope that word will not involve me in any of the controversies which greyhound racing produces—which we could not deal with in that way was greyhound racing, because greyhound racing, alone of these pastimes and recreations, is already very severely governed by Statute. As long ago as 1934, an Act was passed which prescribes certain limitations on the activities of the people who are responsible for providing this particular pastime, and it was, therefore, necessary to consider with these gentlemen the way in which the law could be adapted. From the very first, they met us in the same spirit as did the organisers of those sports and pastimes which are not subject to legislation, and I have been able to reach agreement with them on every point except one, which I will deal with when I come to the proper place in my description of the alterations which we are proposing to make.
The present law with regard to greyhound racing is that not more than 108 meetings may be held in any one licensing


year. A licensing year starts on 1st July and ends on 30th June, and these 108 meetings have to be held on not more than 104 days. Of those 104 days, four are described as specially appointed days, and, in England and Wales, are generally bank holidays. I understand that, among the many differences between England and Scotland, there is the fact that they have no bank holidays in Scotland, and, therefore, that the four appointed days vary from locality to locality, according to the way in which the local holidays are arranged. On these four appointed days, and on these alone, under the existing law, a double meeting is allowed.
The licensing authority in England and Wales is either the county or the county borough concerned, and these authorities have placed upon them the duty of fixing the 104 days on which racing may take place. They have to be the same 104 days for every track in the area of each licensing authority; for example, all tracks in the area of the London County Council must have races on the same 104 days in the year. If the licence holders meet and agree on the days, then the licensing authority has to fix the days on which the licence holders have agreed, but, it they do not, or cannot agree, then he licensing authority itself fixes the days.
I understand that, in this matter, as in many others, Scotsmen are more argumentative than Englishmen, and the main difficulty about not securing agreement, and thereby throwing the responsibility for fixing the days on to the licensing authority, is more common in Scotland than it is in England. Generally speaking but not invariably, two days in the week are so fixed, and if the four specially appointed days are appointed it is the usual practice for the mid-week meeting to be dropped in the week in which the bank holiday occurs so as to bring the number of 104 days back into the picture. In that week the bank holiday or specially appointed day is one day and one of the other two days usually fixed is the second day. In most areas Saturday is one of the fixed days apart from the specially appointed days, but there are some areas, including the county of Lanarkshire, where I understand there is a substantial number of tracks where Saturday is not fixed.
The House will recollect that the Minister of Fuel and Power, when the electricity

cuts were introduced, made an Order forbidding the consumption of electricity on greyhound racing tracks, and as a greyhound racing track is defined by Statute as a place on which a mechanically propelled article is used as an attraction to persuade a greyhound to run, that brought this form of racing to an end. Immediately the Greyhound Racing Association said they were prepared to accept the principle that racing on tracks should be confined to Saturdays only, my right hon. Friend made an Order allowing the use of electricity on racing tracks on Saturdays and bank holidays only. That, of course, helps all the tracks which had Saturday fixed as one of the days on which racing can take place. It does not help at all those tracks where Saturday was not one of the fixed days. We propose under the Bill that there shall still be 108 meetings in the course of the year, and these may be held on any Saturday and on four other appointed days which will be on bank holidays in England and Wales, making a total of 56 days. To compensate for the loss of the mid-week meeting, permission is given for a double meeting to be held on Saturday. If we had a double meeting each Saturday, that would be 104 meetings, and if we had double meetings on the four bank holidays, that would give another eight, making a total of 112. Therefore, in order that the total of 108 may not be exceeded in bank holiday weeks, one of the days in that week must be devoted to a single meeting, and we leave it to the option of the proprietors of the tracks whether they have the single meeting on a bank holiday or on a Saturday.
We are proposing this legislation for the remainder of this licensing year, that is until 30th June, and for the whole of the next licensing year, that is until 30th June, 1948. Unless there is fresh legislation this arrangement will then come to an end. It cannot be extended beyond 30th June, 1948, without a fresh Act of Parliament. We have power in the Bill, if the circumstances should warrant it, to bring this arrangement to an end by Order, and then the Act of 1934 will be restored to full working order. The point on which I have not been able completely to meet the wishes of the proprietors of the tracks is with regard to the time at which racing may commence on Saturday. There was an Order made during the war


which allowed racing to take place on these tracks at any time after 12 noon. That was fixed during the war having more regard to the black out conditions than to the conditions which we have to take into account today. I had originally drafted the Bill to enable racing to start at 2 o'clock on Saturday afternoons. There will be some shift working done on Saturday mornings, and I cannot imagine a shift even on a Saturday morning ending much before noon. It does seem to me, therefore, that inasmuch as the justification for this Measure is its effect on production, it would be unjustifiable to allow racing to commence at noon.

Mr. Carson: The right hon. Gentleman does not mean by that that the gates will not be open at 1 p.m. in order that people who wish to see the race in good time can go in before the racing starts?

Mr. Ede: The advice which I have is that actually seeing the race is no very great part of the enjoyment of attending these greyhound racing tracks. It is the opportunity of making certain investments, small or large as the case may be.

Mr. Carson: But the gates will be open before racing begins.

Mr. Ede: The gates can be open. As I understand this Bill that is the time betting can commence. I think that that is a reasonable compromise, and I hope that the Bill will commend itself to the House. I desire to ask the House to pass the Bill through all its stages today, because we are exceedingly anxious, having been met in the way that we have, that we should not inflict any unnecessary hardship on any people who are connected with this particular pastime. I regret that it should be necessary to trouble the House with this legislation. I am quite sure of this, that had the proprietors of the greyhound racing tracks been as free as the people who control other sports, I should not have had to trouble the House with the matter at all, but they are not free. They are limited very much indeed by the existing Act, and these modifications are necessary if they are to be able to carry out the arrangements into which they have entered. I hope, therefore, that the House will be prepared to let us have this Measure.

1.29 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: have no complaint to make about the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this Measure, but I think the Opposition and the House generally have some right to complain at the way in which this legislation is being thrown at their heads. On 13th March the right hon. Gentleman announced that a Bill of this character would be introduced—that is a week last Thursday. It was not until Wednesday morning of this week, however—that is, 48 hours ago—that hon. Members had any opportunity of seeing the Bill in print, and, therefore, it has been quite impossible in the time available to give the Bill detailed study or to draft Amendments in time for the further stages of the Bill which again, in compliance with the wishes of the Government, I understand are all to be taken today.
I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the contents of the Bill had been discussed and agreed with the Greyhound Racing Society. He told us, in the earlier part of his speech, that with one exception, which he intended to mention later, the contents of the Bill had been so agreed. If he did mention the one exception—the point upon which there is disagreement—I am afraid I must have missed it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would make the point clear.

Mr. Ede: It is the question as to whether racing shall start at 12 noon or one p.m. That is the only point on which there is disagreement.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged. That makes the position quite clear. But I do not think the fact that the Greyhound Racing Society, which, I presume, is the body with which the right hon. Gentleman has been dealing, has agreed to the proposals in the Bill, necessarily precludes full discussion in the House. We are sometimes presented with Measures here which have been the result of agreement outside, whether it be with the Trades Union Congress or the Greyhound Racing Society. Nevertheless, I have always thought that the fact that there had been agreement outside made it all the more necessary for the House of Commons to look closely at the proposals.
This Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, has a certain amount of history behind it. It was, I think, in the second week in February that the


Minister of Fuel and Power imposed a complete ban on greyhound racing by means of the Control of Fuel (Dog Race Course) Order. I felt that in view of the negligible amount of electricity consumed at dog tracks when they are operated in daylight, the Order made by the Minister of Fuel and Power was really a pretext, and that the saving of fuel was not the real object of the Order which was made six weeks ago. I think it is now clear from the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on 13th March, and from his speech today, that the confinement of dog racing in future to Saturday afternoons is not imposed in any way with the idea of saving fuel. Of course, the Bill will not, in fact, save any fuel because the number of meetings will be the same as they were under the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934. The object of this Measure and, in my opinion, the object of the Order which the Minister of Fuel and Power made early in February, prohibiting the use of fuel on dog tracks, is clearly in order to cut down absenteeism and to endeavour to increase production. In his statement on 13th March, the right hon. Gentleman said:
… it is of vital importance in the present national emergency that arrangements should be made whereby all sporting events which are likely to attract large attendances shall take place only on Saturday afternoons …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 1502.]
In his speech today he said that the real justification for the Bill is its effect on production. I will come again to those two matters in the course of a few moments. In my opinion, the real author of this Bill—and I am glad to see that his name appears on the back of it—is the Minister of Fuel and Power, but I am a little surprised that we do not see him on the Treasury Bench today, because there is, surely, a clear connection between this Bill which confines dog racing to Saturdays, and the proposal to resume the five day week in the coal mines, which was the common practice in the "bad old days" when the mines were under private ownership and when coal was plentiful, and we even had a little to spare for export. In my opinion, the Minister of Fuel and Power is the author of this Bill and, undoubtedly, the idea is that absenteeism from industry will be diminished if dog racing is confined to Saturday afternoons.
We have not had any real evidence upon this point. The right hon. Gentleman—I took a note of his words—said that complaints had been received from managers in certain industries that midweek sporting events interfered with production.

Mr. Ede: Where they attract large audiences.

Mr. Peake: Yes. I would very much like to know from what industries these complaints have come. I would also like to know the extent to which absenteeism is measurably increased upon a particular day on which a particular sporting event has occurred. There is not much evidence before the House at present, except the general statement that certain complaints have been made by managers in certain industries.

Mr. Leslie: Almost every factory.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Gentleman says "almost every factory", but is he saying that the managers of almost every factory have made these complaints, and, if so, to whom have they made them? Could we have some figures from the right hon. Gentleman? Would he say, for example, that 1,000 factory managers have complained, or that 10,000 have complained, or that absenteeism in a particular factory on the occasion of a particular sporting event went up by 20, 30 or 40 per cent.? I think one of the Ministers concerned with production, either the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who I see is with us, or the Minister of Fuel and Power, or a Minister representing the Board of Trade, might have given the House some clear cut evidence that absenteeism has increased, and that production has suffered through mid-week sporting events.
I ask myself whether the Bill is really necessary. I compare the position today with the position during the war. During the war no compulsory powers were exercised in order to curtail any sporting events, even including greyhound racing. Curtailment during the war was effected by voluntary agreement. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that there was an Order permitting greyhound racing to take place upon Saturday afternoons. That was because there were some areas where Saturday was not one of the appointed days; but the curtailment of dog racing,


as of all other sporting events during the war, was effected by voluntary agreement, and the main motive for curtailment during the war was not to curtail absenteeism nor to increase production, so much as to avoid large crowds foregathering, which were objectionable from a home security point of view by reason of the possibility of a bomb being dropped and panic being caused.
Of course, during the war transport was a vital factor, and horse racing, for example, was greatly curtailed because of the demand which horse racing, unlike dog racing, makes upon public transport. I am told that most of the dog racing fans proceed to the neighbouring track on foot, or by some other form of transport which does not involve long journeys. During the war curtailment was entirely upon a voluntary basis; no Statute or Order of this character was required in order to curtail mid-week sporting events.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: The right hon. Gentleman just said that most people proceed to and from dog tracks on foot. Has he not visited a dog track and seen outside literally hundreds of taxis and dozens of buses which are used to transport the patrons of these wretched "joints"?

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member betrays some little prejudice in this matter—a prejudice which is extremely common, but of which I hope he will try to clear his mind in approaching a Bill of this character. Certainly, in the mining districts—and I think it is for the mining districts that this Bill is designed—

Mr. Ede: Oh, no. I must disabuse the right hon. Gentleman of that. This Bill is not specially aimed at mining districts. The only way in which mining districts differ from other districts is, that a more strict check is kept of absenteeism from the mines. That does not apply to other industries in the country, and in consequence sometimes miners have been spoken of as if they were the only absentees. That is not the case, and this Bill is not aimed specifically and especially at mining districts.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman expressed great reluctance at having to introduce this Bill. But I am quite confident that for a long time past he has been pressed by the Minister of Fuel and Power to introduce a Measure of this

character. I am equally sure that the Minister of Fuel and Power—whom, as I say, I am sorry not to see upon the Treasury Bench today—has a strong prejudice against dog racing. I will come back to that point a little later in my remarks.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: rose—

Mr. Peake: I am about to answer the hon. Member's interruption, which I have come to in due course, having since been interrupted by the Home Secretary. In reply to the interruption of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) I should say this. At any rate in the mining areas, where there are a very large number of dog tracks, he will find that the miners proceed to them on foot. I am quite sure that the amount of public transport used by dog racing fans is negligible in proportion to the number of people who attend them—certainly in proportion to the amount of public transport which is used by, let us say, people who go to horse racing, which attracts a far smaller crowd throughout the year than do these greyhound racing functions. However, it is such a small point that I do not think we need bother about it.
During the war there was a saving in transport owing to the limitation of dog racing. But let me tell the House what the voluntary limitation of dog racing amounted to during the war. On 20th June, 1940, the then Home Secretary, the present right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), told the House that greyhound racing meetings would take place only in the evenings and in the afternoons on Saturdays and days which were local half-holidays. This Bill contains no provision of any sort for any local option of that character. Yet there are considerable areas where the local closing day is not on a Saturday, and where it would probably be much better, so far as drawing people away from their work is concerned, to permit dog racing on a Wednesday or a Thursday afternoon rather than on Saturday. I am very sorry that this Bill contains no provision for local option of any sort or kind. On 25th June, 1940, a few days later, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security said that the Greyhound Racing Society had agreed to racing on each track on one day only each week. This was all done by voluntary agreement and no Act of Parliament of the character with which we are now presented was required.
I pass on to the year 1941, when, on 11th December, an hon. Member of this House, Mr. R. C. Morrison, now I believe Lord Morrison, asked the Home Secretary
whether, in view of the urgency of increased production, it is proposed to continue greyhound racing meetings in mid-week?
The Home Secretary of the day, the present Lord President of the Council, with whom I was associated at that time, replied:
In the absence of evidence that afternoon greyhound racing meetings have an adverse effect on production, there would appear to be no justification for the imposition of further restrictions on this form of entertainment. I do not think that hon. Members ought to confuse their objection to a particular form of entertainment with their views on absenteeism.
I commend that statement of the Lord President of the Council to the hon. Member for Bedford.

Mr. Austin: In making a comparison between then and now, would not the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that during the war the Essential Work Order functioned and prevented a great deal of absenteeism, which is possible today?

Mr. Peake: Quite frankly, I do not follow that. But perhaps the hon. Member will make his point when he makes his own speech.

Mr. Austin: It prevented absenteeism.

Mr. Peake: In December, 1941, when Lord Morrison, as he now is, asked this Question of the present Lord President of the Council, we had a very revealing supplementary. In fact, there was a very revealing exchange between two Members of the present Government. On 11th December, 1941, there was asked the following supplementary question:
Mr. Shinwell: Does not the Minister realise that when people go to the pictures it does not involve a waste of transport? 
The then Home Secretary, the present Lord President of the Council, replied:
With great respect, I think that my hon. Friend is subconsciously influenced by his dislike for this form of entertainment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1941; Vol. 376, c. 1666–7.]
Of course, the Lord President of the Council knows the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power much better than I do. He, at any rate, seemed to think that that right hon. Gentleman

had a dislike of dog racing which was subconsciously influencing him. Accepting the view of the Lord President of the Council upon that point, I am rather inclined to think that the same thing is happening at the present time.
Surely, the question arises: Did these restrictions on mid-week sport help or hinder production? They were imposed, as a general rule, on different grounds, namely, on security grounds and in order to save transport. But the question does arise whether they hindered or helped production. It is very difficult, of course, to get any clear figures upon this question. But so far as the coalfields are concerned, it seems to me that the case is wholly unproved. In 1940 the output per man employed was 300 tons. It fell steadily and continuously as these restrictions on mid-week sport became more and more severe throughout the war, until, in 1943, it reached 275 tons a man; and in 1945, when for the greater part of the year these restrictions were in force, 246 tons.
So far as absenteeism is concerned, from about 6½ per cent. in the two prewar years, it increased steadily throughout the war while these restrictions on mid-week sport were becoming more and more severe, until it reached 16 per cent. in 1945. I cannot find any figures which tend to show that the rate of absenteeism has gone up since the increase of sporting events following on the end of the war. I should have thought that anybody who wanted to prove a case in regard to absenteeism would have been able to produce some figures to show that, while these wartime restrictions were in force, absenteeism was reduced, and that it has grown since we have let up on those restrictions. I should have thought that that was a point upon which evidence must be available and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is going to intervene in the Debate and give us this evidence before the further stages of this Bill are concluded.
May I make it clear that I hold no brief at all for the greyhound interest? In fact they have reached agreement and may be said to be in league with the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Austin: They are doing very well.

Mr. Peake: As the hon. Gentleman says, they are doing very well. I myself


have paid only one visit to this form of entertainment in the whole of my existence. Apart from an unusual incident which occurred on the occasion of my visit, I found it extremely dull. On that occasion, however, the machinery went wrong. The operators were unable to stop the hare going round the track; the race developed into a marathon obstacle with the attendants rushing out with various devices intended to cut the greyhounds off from the hare, and the race finally concluded only when, at about the eighth lap, the hare ran into the greyhounds from behind. My experience of the other races discouraged me from further visits. But let me say a word to one or two hon. Members opposite who are a little influenced by the amount of gambling attached to this sport. The whole question of gambling was very fully considered by the Royal Commission of 1932, and it was upon their unanimous report that the Betting and Lotteries Act of 1934 was founded. The Royal Commission said one or two very wise things about gambling. In paragraph 233 of their Report they said:
Public opinion generally would not support legislation based solely on ethical objections to gambling.
They went on to say:
We think the general aim of the State in dealing with facilities for organised or professional gambling should be to prohibit or place restrictions on such facilities, and such facilities only, as can he shown to have serious social consequences if not checked… Legislation as to gambling must necessarily contain a considerable element of practical compromise.
I think that those very wise statements would appeal to the great balance of what I might call middle opinion on the matter in this House, but if there is one thing which is quite certain, it is that this Bill will not tend to diminish the amount of gambling on greyhound racing.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: But it will.

Mr. Peake: There is going to be just the same amount quantitatively. Surely, the hon. Member listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he made it quite clear that the number of hours and days of greyhound racing in the year would be exactly the same under this Bill as was permitted under the Betting and Lotteries Act of 1934?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there will be far more competing interests in

the sports line on a Saturday than hitherto when greyhound racing has been spaced out over other days of the week?

Mr. Peake: The hon. Gentleman can derive what little comfort he can from that—

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I derive a great deal.

Mr. Peake: —but actually the amount of greyhound racing will be just the same. In fact, if we were to cut down the number of days or hours spent in greyhound racing that would not have the slightest effect on the amount of gambling, because people would just increase their stake pro Canto on the hours and days on which it was allowed. When money is as plentiful as it is now, as the result of the great excess of spending power over goods available for purchase, it is quite natural that there should have been a steady growth in the amount of gambling of this and other forms.
The right hon. Gentleman has clearly explained the provisions of the Act of 1934. I personally regret that on the Committee stage of that Measure the Government of the day introduced a concession providing that the appointed days should be those selected by the proprietors of the tracks if they were unanimous. It would have been much better if the local authority had retained the absolute power of choosing the appointed days. In that case this Bill would have been unnecessary; the right hon. Gentleman would merely have had to advise the local authorities who, in response to his appeal, would, I am quite sure, have followed his wishes that the appointed day should be Saturday in every week. Of course, if racing on another week day was to be prohibited there would have had to be some further Amendment of the 1934 Act, but it has always seemed to me to be a pity that local option exists in this matter only where there is disagreement among the proprietors of the tracks as to what the appointed day shall be. As I say, it would be much better if some element of local option had been preserved both in the principal Act and in the Bill now before the House. This Bill has been produced in haste and, like all hasty legislation, will, I think, fail of its objects. Greyhound racing—although many of us dislike it—is not wholly a bad thing. It takes a great many people out of doors


who would otherwise remain in a public house or a stuffy cinema, and, morever, ft takes people's minds off their troubles and worries.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: It increases them.

Mr. Peake: It has the same effect upon those people as Hitler's bombs had upon the old lady who observed, "The best thing about these bombs is that they do take your mind off the sanguinary war." As I say, greyhound racing is not wholly a bad thing, and I doubt whether the Bill will have any effect of increasing production. There is room for considerable doubt whether to curtail people's simple pleasures under peacetime conditions will result in their working harder. After all, it constitutes the removal of one incentive, when most people are agreed that one of the basic causes of slack production is the absence of incentive at the present time. The merits of the Bill are, therefore, in my opinion, extremely doubtful, but the Opposition will not stand in the way of any step which the Government consider necessary and likely to assist the nation through the economic crisis with which we are faced today.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: In listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), I must confess that I had some difficulty in gathering from the labyrinthine movements of his observations whether he was in favour of the Bill or against it. I do not know whether he considers that the situation is one in which it is essential to do something, or whether, in his view, the status quo should remain. I would like respectfully to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the very clear way in which he introduced the Bill, which is not as clearly framed as it might have been. The Home Secretary has, as the House knows from experience, a penetrating and quick-sighted mind and that has enabled him to grasp what is said to be the meaning of this Measure. I have myself looked carefully at the Bill and I agree with the right hon. Member for North Leeds that it shows signs in parts of having been very hurriedly drafted.
There is one item, in particular, which I think is very obscure, and on which I

find it very difficult to give an interpretation in accordance with the view which the Home Secretary has expressed on it. I will come to that shortly. We ought not to approach this discussion with any prejudice against gambling and particularly against dog racing, which is the subject that is being debated. The question of gambling does not enter here; the principle of gambling is not in issue in this Debate. The principle the House has to consider is whether the conditions under which dog racecourse betting is allowed at the present time are such as are consistent with or adversely affect the needs of production now. That is the issue. It is an issue of considerable importance. I do not feel that I am called upon to express any view as to whether I am for or against gambling of this nature. What I am asked to apply my mind to, and what the House has to decide, is whether some alteration in the present set-up of dog racecourse betting ought to be made.
Is there any and what sufficient reason for this alteration? It is clear that the Home Secretary would not have asked the House merely to make an alteration here which, apart from the days on which dog racing is to take place, does not in substance make any alteration at all. That is an important point to register. All that the Bill seeks to do is to confine dog racing to Saturdays and Bank Holidays. It does not seek to curtail the number of hours that are to be allowed for dog racecouse betting, but it does confine it to a particular day and to a particular time; that is to say, it says that it shall be on Saturdays and Bank Holidays only, and not on any other day. As far as Saturdays are concerned, there are only 52 of them in the year and therefore, in order to carry out what is stipulated, what is prescribed in the 1934 Act, namely, that there may be dog racecourse betting on 104 days, what has been done by the Bill is that, instead of having only the four continuous hours on any particular day which are permitted under the 1934 Act, the Home Secretary and the greyhound racing interests have agreed that the period now can be eight continuous hours. It is, therefore, important to note, apart from the fact that the day has been altered, that the amount of racecourse betting, the total time occupied by it, and the total number of races, are precisely the same.
A point arises here which I would like the Home Secretary to consider. I do not know what the effect will be, but it seems to me that, where, as in the past, there was a meeting which involved only four continuous hours, the staff and the organisation must have required to be less than it has to be if there is a meeting which lasts for eight hours. I have not heard anything said about what effect that will have. Of course, one can understand that, if there is a staff which is requisite merely for the purpose of dealing with dog racing over a period of four continuous hours, obviously something more must in the way of personnel, etc., be required if that period is to be doubled, not only by twice the time, but by twice the actual number of races. I should like to know that the result of this change is not going to be a means of attracting to dog racecourses the need for more employment there, because I imagine that employment there is very attractive, and, in spite of the experiences of which we have heard from the right hon. Member for North Leeds, no doubt this form of sport is entertaining and attractive even to those employed in the work. It has to be borne in mind that there are many scores of these dog racecourses all over the country. I hope there will be some indication that this particular alteration will not lead to something which would be very unfortunate, in view of the fact that the purpose of the Bill is to increase production. It would be very unfortunate indeed to have to make a levy, however small, upon the already restricted manpower of the country if it means that an additional amount of that manpower would have to be utilised in working on dog racecourse tracks merely because of the alteration that has been made.
The right hon. Member for North Leeds referred to the function of what he called the local authority but which is more correctly referred to as the licensing authority. What this Bill does is to take that duty of fixing the precise days completely out of the hands of the licensing authority. The Bill expressly lays down the times at and days on which dog racing is to take place and substitutes that provision for the function of the licensing authority. It is just to be regarded as though, in fact, the licensing authority had decided these statutory days. The only function that is left for the licensing authority is that, under Section 10 of the

1934 Act, they shall fix the 104 days under this Bill as, in fact, they had to do under the 1934 Act. That is rather artificial, because they cannot alter the fact that the racing has got to be held on Saturday, and if the races extend over a period of eight hours, that period is reckoned as two days instead of one day, and the 52 is thereby doubled, and one gets the 104 days.

Mr. Ede: We have continued to impose that duty on the licensing authority because we may revoke the Order during the year 1947–48, and if we do it will be necessary that the days should be fixed.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I follow that, but in the meantime, I think my right hon. Friends will agree that the net result of this is that it removes the function from the licensing authority to the provisions of this Bill, which prescribes absolutely that the days are to be Saturdays and bank holidays. If, of course, something were done to change the law which would be enacted under this Measure, obviously, we should revert to the previous law. I can quite see that this provision, fixing 104 days, will work in the way that the Home Secretary said, but there is a point I wish to put about the four specially appointed days. I understood from my right hon. Friend that the four days would remain, in other words, there would still be 108 meetings. I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this matter again, because Clause 1 (2, b) of the Bill appears to get rid of the proviso set out in Section 4 (1) of the 1931 Act, in which, in a strange way also, there is introduced this question of four specially appointed days. It is a most extraordinary provision that I find so expressed in an Act of Parliament. This Bill says that that proviso should have no effect, and I cannot understand what is left of the four specially appointed days if the proviso which creates those four specially appointed days has to go. It was made clear from the Home Secretary's speech, as I have said, that those four days were to remain, and it therefore strikes me that in this particular provision there is not only a contradiction, but considerable obscurity.
The question has been raised as to whether this Bill is necessary. I do not think that any responsible person would not welcome it, once it was conceded that its effect would take away any diversion,


during the week, which might in any way prejudice production in the present emergency. No one can give any guarantee or assurance, but if there is any doubt that by having these sports during the week production is being prejudiced then that in itself is sufficient justification for this Measure. I represent a city in which there is a large and prosperous dog racing track, and I welcome this Bill as, I am certain, does everyone who is anxious to help production. It is not a question of regulating people's lives; no one wishes to do that. It is a question of trying to regulate conditions which will make people's lives worth living, and that will be helped by increasing production.

2.12 p.m.

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: Although the Bill we are considering is small in size, it is undoubtedly one which will affect the lives and habits of a very large proportion of this country's working class population. In my opinion, the bringing forward of this Bill is typical of the general futility and bankruptcy of leadership which is being shown by this so-called Labour Government. For years, the supporters of the Government have told the people of the promised land when they came into power. They led them to believe that conditions would come about whereby they could work fewer hours and get bigger pay packets at the end of the week. Now the Labour Government are in power they have now to realise, at last, that less work means less production, and that we must produce in order to live.
It is clear that the intention of the Government, in putting forward this Bill, is to get more production, but what is their remedy for that, what are they putting forward that will lead the people of this country to work harder? It is no midweek sport, less entertainment and less fun. At no time in his speech did the Home Secretary make out a definite case that absenteeism in industry was affected by midweek sport or greyhound racing throughout the country. He said that probably it did, that he had heard so, but he produced no figures, and said nothing about any representations having been made by industry to the Government to stop midweek sport. In this matter, the Government are making a great mis-

take. They are treating the worker like a naughty child is treated, when toys and sweets are taken away because it will not practise conscientiously on the piano. When will the Government grow up, and be adult-minded in their treatment of workers in industry? In taking away sport from what they regard as the bad worker, the absentee, they are affecting the good worker. The Home Secretary should know that in many of our provincial towns there is a half day off for the shopkeeper and trader in the middle of the week. Surely, the shopkeeper who has done a hard week's work is entitled to have his pleasure on his half day off. What about the nightworker? What about the self-employed person who can make up time by working in the evening if he desires? Surely they should have a chance of getting away from some of the dullness and monotony of life.
The policy of the Government in this matter is one of dull, monotonous leadership. What the country wants, if we are to get the necessary production, is inspiration. We require deep, stirring, imaginative leadership, such as we had from the last Prime Minister during the war. When he went to the microphone the millions of people who listened to the magic of his voice went back to work, inspired with renewed vigour—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now getting a long way from the dog track.

Wing-Commander Robinson: I tried not to get too far away, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was considering the principle behind this Bill, and trying to advise the Government how to get the production which they appear to desire. My thesis was that in order to get it they should not do it by a measure of restriction such as this, but rather by leadership which would be trusted by the people and which would, in turn, trust the people.

Major Bruce: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether, after his tirade against the Government, he is prepared to vote against the Bill?

Wing-Commander Robinson: The hon. and gallant Member will find out if he is prepared to sit here for the rest of the


afternoon. In this restrictive policy of the Government we have not got the kind of leadership that people trust, or that will inspire them. We have a policy of trying to save a few pennies and a few man hours while spending needlessly millions of pound, in other directions, and in wasting millions of man hours. I think that the policy of restriction is typical of the present Government. They have shown in my view a lack of policy behind this legislation.
I would like to raise one particular aspect of the matter with the Home Secretary. I want to call his attention to the position of holiday resorts in matters of this kind. I raised it at Question time with the Home Secretary yesterday afternoon, and, listening to his reply, I thought that one could at least say that he was not unfriendly to the view I put before him that the holiday resorts deserve special attention. The main purpose of holiday resorts is to create pleasure and happiness and to provide entertainment. There are few other industries in the holiday resorts other than the entertainment industry, from which the people living there can earn their daily bread. These resorts try during the season to offer the fullest measure of attractions which include a very wide variety of sporting events. They are not catering for workers during working hours but they are catering for the millions of workers on their holidays. They are providing for the workers' playtime. I think that it is generally agreed on both sides of the House that workers' holidays are essential for industrial efficiency. They are part of the incentive which leads to harder work and better production.
Therefore, the holiday facilities must be good, for when the worker gets his holidays as an industrial reward he expects to get a real change and he hopes to experience some of the joys of life and have that freedom and gaiety which he does not have while he is engaged in his daily work. Therefore, he wants to be provided on holiday with all forms of sport and entertainment during the week as well as at the weekend. If the Government, by proposing restrictions on any form of sport, give it as their view that they intend to have during the coming summer austerity holidays, then I say that they will be altogether failing to achieve the object which they most desire.
There is another point. If we close down the entertainment industry in the holiday resorts there will be in many cases no other form of employment available for the local resident. When we get on to the Committee stage of this Bill we have an Amendment which we hope will help the Home Secretary and give him some of the powers which he should have. When I asked him in the House yesterday whether in view of the fact that workers' holidays were necessary for industrial efficiency, he would undertake not to place any objection on the provision of sporting facilities during mid-week, in seaside resorts, he said:
It any such difficulty should occur, and the holiday resorts were unable to make the necessary arrangements with the association controlling that particular sport, I should be very happy to do what I could to see that matters were sorted out properly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 568.]
That was yesterday, and today he asks the House to pass legislation which will prevent him from doing the very thing which he said yesterday he would like to effect. Will the Home Secretary consider this question of seaside resorts, amenities, and workers' holidays? By doing so he could improve this Bill and give increased pleasure which the workers desire to have during their holiday.

2.24 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: I do not propose to follow the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson). The House will be interested to learn that, for the first time in its history, the Conservative Party are interested in the entertainment of the working class. I can claim 20 years' association with the working class movement, and I have never known such interest as displayed today by hon. Members opposite on behalf of the working class.

Wing-Commander Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House a little longer, he would have known that for something over 15 years I have been pressing the case of good holidays for workers.

Mr. Mellish: It has not been a notable effort of the Conservative Party, and I have known the Conservative Party for over 20 years. I am critical of this Bill, and I do not think that this introduction will help to curb gambling, save fuel or


prevent absenteeism. It has not been proved today that absenteeism is caused by dog racing, and no evidence has been produced to justify this Bill in any way. I put it to the Home Secretary that the Government are following a rather dangerous procedure in interfering so much with the liberties of the people of this country. The working class are, after all, the people they represent. It should be the Government's policy, I think, to avoid too much infringement of their liberties.
We must watch the position very carefully, and try to make things a little easier for them and not restrict them. I do not think myself that the Government have put a case for the introduction of this Bill to restrict dog racing. I am not a dog racing fan, I have no shares in dog tracks, and I am not interested in book-makers, but I am interested in the fact that hundreds and thousands of people quite sincerely and genuinely go to those places as a form of entertainment. We cannot avoid that; we may not like it, but it is their form of entertainment. There seem to be far too many people running round the country trying to cure other people's souls and put them on the road to righteousness, and I think it would be as well for some of those people to look at their own souls before they start advising other people.
The suggestion is here that whoever goes to a dog track must be a sordid sort of person, and that these places bring together all the worst elements in the country. We must recognise that the vast majority of people who go dog racing and horse racing do so because it is their form of pleasure, and they have a right to their own kind of pleasure. Most of these dog racing meetings have been evening meetings, at a time when most people have finished work, and no figures had been brought to prove that absenteeism is in any way encouraged by entertainment of this kind. I would ask the Home Secretary to remember that this type of legislation is reacting not against hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are exploiting the position for party purposes, as they always do, but is directed against those of us who are interested in the welfare of the working class. Not only now, but in future legislation, we want to determine that we will legislate for the benefit of our people, so far as entertainment is

concerned, as much as possible, and not for its curtailment. I do not think that the Home Secretary can justify this Bill.

2.29 p.m.

Mr. Carson: I think that the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr Mellish) is typical of other hon. Members opposite, who are apt to say at any time we on this side of the House oppose any Measure, we are acting in our own party interests and not in the interests of the country. It seems to be the argument that, whenever a Bill is proposed, we should keep quiet and agree with the Government, and then we shall not get into trouble. I think that is a rotten argument. In view of what the hon. Gentleman opposite said, that he held no shares in greyhound tracks, I would say that I hold a few shares in one greyhound track. I say a few, and I mean a few. It may be a very fine greyhound track, but it never pays me anything. Of course, it may, at some time in the future.
I think that some people in this country are inclined to approve this Measure because they believe that greyhound racing is a social evil, that it is unpleasant and unwarranted. That may or may not be so. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) obviously thinks it is, but, whether it is or not, it is not the issue which we are discussing today. The object of this Bill is obviously whether, if it is passed, it will make the people of this country work harder, and will induce them not to stay away from work in order, to use a colloquialism, "to go to the dogs." But those two points are entirely different. If the Government consider that greyhound racing is a social evil—and nothing which the right hon. Gentleman said in his opening speech has led me to suppose that they do—then they must come to this House and to the country and seek powers to abolish or curtail dog racing in this country. If they want to do that, let them do it in a straightforward way, and not by a hole and corner method, as the hon. Member for Bedford suggested.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt him for a moment, I would point out that I have not yet had an opportunity to make a speech on this Bill, and that, far from saying what he has suggested, I have just sat here quietly.

Mr. Carson: I really cannot accept that. I have been present throughout most of the Debate, and, although I admire the hon. Gentleman exceedingly, I cannot agree that he has sat quietly on the bench. There were two interruptions by him, and they both gave me the impression that he regarded greyhound racing as a social evil. If that is so, then the Government must come down to this House and seek power to curtail it for that reason. But that is not the reason we are discussing it today. The question today is, will people work more if greyhound racing is stopped? Will absenteeism in the pits of this country be less if this Bill becomes an Act? I rather doubt it. I should like the right hon. Gentleman, who replies to tell us whether in the Chislet colliery in the Kent coalfields, to take an example, which is near my constituency, and many of the miners of which live in my constituency, absenteeism there is greater on a Thursday, because of the greyhound racing which takes place at Dumpton Park in the Isle of Thanet, than on any other day of the week, and, if it is, by how much? I think that these are important points. We have no figures and no data to show that greyhound racing leads to absenteeism. There is another aspect of this matter.
In 1913 or 1914, some foreign ruler called us a "nation of shopkeepers." I do not know whether that is true or not, but, as far as my own part of the world is concerned, my constituency in the main is a constituency of shopkeepers, and the shops there mostly close on Thursday. A great many of the shop assistants and of the people who own shops and run them on their own, have been in the habit of going to the local greyhound track on Thursdays. Now they are to be restricted to Saturays only. But they do not get a half day on Saturday, and I think that is an important point.
I dislike this Bill exceedingly, because it is yet one more curtailment of the ordinary freedom of the individual. There has been a lot of interference with the freedom of the individual to date, and I suggest to the House that this is just one more example of panic legislation. The Government say that it is necessary. They may be right, or they may not, but if they think that they are right, and if they are sure that it is absolutely vital in the interests of the country to pass this Bill, then they should put forward far more

concrete reasons and facts than did the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in his opening speech.

2.36 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson), admitted that he was a shareholder in a dog track, but that he had got nothing out of it. To my mind, it must be a very poor dog track, judging by what the other tracks pay. From what the hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson) said, one would have thought that dog racing was absolutely essential for the welfare of Blackpool. I am going there at Easter, and I hope that there will be some other entertainment apart from dog racing. The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) asked if this Bill was really necessary, and whether dog racing helped or hindered production. The only time when it can help production is, I think, when the worker loses his week's wages, and then wants to work overtime to make good his loss.
We were asked whether the Bill is really necessary. To my mind, it ought to be welcomed by all who have the best interest of the nation at heart. Greyhound racing is not a sport in the real sense, because its only attraction is the betting. There is nothing else to it. We know that mid-week racing is absolutely detrimental to production. I have evidence of that from some of the factories in the London area. I am told that it is not only the fact of absenteeism during the mid-week which is a drawback to production, but that excitement goes on inside the factory all the time while waiting for the results of the races, and that bookmakers haunt the vicinity of the factories all the week. As to the betting, it is not a case of merely a shilling, but, very often, of a man's whole week's wages. I honestly feel that this Bill is worth supporting in order to prevent mid-week dog racing.

2.38 p.m.

Major Tufton Beamish: I wish to associate myself very briefly with the excellent point of view put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson). As always, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and


learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), whose legal views are always listened to with much interest by hon. Members on this side of the House. But I could not refrain from thinking, while he was speaking, of a modern dance tune which, curiously enough, is about a greyhound which was running round in circles, and getting nowhere. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) made some very sound points, with which I was largely in agreement. I was particularly interested when he said that this Bill was not designed to prevent absenteeism, and when he suggested that no figures had been produced to prove that it was. If it is not designed to prevent absenteeism, then it cannot be designed to prevent anything at all. We have been told that it may increase production. I should think that it is no more likely to prevent absenteeism than it is to increase production.
In my opinion this is a bad Bill, and it is not a better Bill just because we are told that it is going to be defunct on 30th June, 1948. There has been a lot of confused thinking on this matter. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) and several other hon. Members have discussed whether greyhound racing is a sport, a pastime, a relaxation, or merely a gamble. I cannot see that it has anything to do with which of those four things greyhound racing may be. It was very rightly pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) in his opening speech that, in any case, this Bill is going to do nothing to diminish gambling, because those who wish to have a flutter of, say, five or ten bob a week on greyhounds are only going to double their stakes if they can only go once a week instead of twice. That should be obvious to everybody. Many people enjoy greyhound racing. I have been only once to a greyhound race. I had a small bet, which I lost, and I had a particularly bad dinner, so I have no intention of ever going again. Anyhow, that has nothing to do with the Bill. Millions of people do enjoy greyhound racing, and there is no use in denying it.
When the Home Secretary opened the Debate he said that he regretted the necessity for the Bill. I understood that that was largely on legal grounds because, as he explained, greyhound racing authorities are not entirely free, by reason

of previous legislation. I hope that I am not misinterpreting the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ede: No. The Football Association can advise affiliated football clubs not to hold matches on Wednesdays or Thursdays, and the local clubs can carry out that wish without any legislation on the part of this House. If the Greyhound Association had said: "Please abandon your mid-Week meeting and hold a double meeting on Saturday," that would have been inviting promoters to permit definite breaches of the law.

Major Beamish: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation. I had understood that before, but perhaps I did not express my meaning very clearly.
I am not satisfied that there is a necessity for the Bill. In wartime the necessity for production was every bit as great, but dog racing was done with the full agreement of the authorities. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet that the whole restriction of mid-week sport is a serious curtailment of the liberty of the subject. It is a curtailment which ought to be unnecessary and one with which I cannot possibly agree. If the necessity for it exists it arises from the fact that in the last few months we have been going through the most serious crisis of this century, a crisis second only to that of 1926. The crisis was due, as we are all aware, to the muddled planning and bad housekeeping of the Government and not entirely to the weather. It was due also to the failure of the Minister of Fuel and Power to listen to the warnings of this party and of many experts. Those warnings were laughed at or scoffed at, or were dubbed by the Minister as being an attempt to sabotage the national effort. I shall not get out of Order, Mr. Speaker, any more. Indeed, with great respect, I wondered whether I was out of Order. I was seeking to show that the Bill should not be necessary. In any case, I will now leave that point.
I will only say that it is extraordinary that the Minister of Fuel and Power is not here. I do not know why he is not here. Perhaps he has gone to watch greyhound racing.

Wing-Commander Robinson: He is a gambler.

Major Beamish: I am sure of one thing, and that is that the Minister of Fuel and


Power owes this House, the country and the general public an apology for the Bill having had to be brought in. For that matter, the Government as a whole owe them an apology. Over years of irresponsible propaganda the Socialist Party have been trying to teach people that they should do less and less work and get more and more pay. I regard the Bill as one of the many blessings of the Socialist Utopia so freely promised at the General Election. The country is going to the dogs, even though the Government do stop the meetings in mid-week.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Braddock: I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite have had as little knowledge of industrial processes as their speeches seem to indicate? The facts should be obvious to them, if they do not know them already. I recommend that they attend factories or building jobs where work is actually going on.
Whatever we may think of this Measure, it is a fact that broken time during the week has most serious results on production. It is not only the fact that individual men and women leave their job that matters, but also the effect upon the whole scheme of production. Bricklayers and bricklayers' labourers work together. on building jobs. If the labourers are not there, the bricklayers cannot work and vice versa. All of us on this side of the House are aware that that argument applies throughout the whole of the industrial process. The present Government are one of the most fortunate of modern times. They have known about the adjustments that should be made in our industrial processes but for some reason or other they have not had the good fortune to bring them forward. The fortuitous circumstance has arisen that we have had a fuel crisis. It has impressed upon the minds of everybody the need for organisation in order to get full production.
The Government now feel themselves able to bring forward certain adjustments. There has been daylight saving. Now we get an attempt to deal with the question of broken time. I hope that no consideration of the rightness or the wrongness of gambling or of the sort of amusement or sport that any one of us may entertain—

Mr. Guy: My hon. Friend has made a definite charge against bricklayers and bricklayers' labourers.

Can he tell me any job in London where work is carried on until 7 o'clock at night?

Mr. Braddock: I used that illustration as an example of what happens on a job. If my hon. Friend wants to know whether it is so or not, let me tell him that I was a constant visitor to building jobs right through the war, as an inspector of building trade labour for the Minister of Labour. Time after time I found exactly that state of affairs going on. I am not particularly blaming the men, but the system under which they operate. Our Government are different from any that we have had before, because they are making an attempt to face the country's difficulties. We ought not to allow our prejudices about gambling or sport to influence us on this matter.
I have some doubts, however, about the Government's policy on this matter. This is a psychological matter. There is no doubt that people who are in the habit of attending dog racing will resent the imposition of these restrictions. They will ask why they should be interfered with when people who go to cinemas, theatres, the Derby, to churches, cricket matches and horse races are not interfered with. There is something in what they say. The Government are probably justified in bringing in this legislation immediately, but I would ask them to get down to the job, as soon as they have time, of giving fresh and much deeper consideration to the organisation of activities of this description.
The fact that horse racing apparently will not be interfered with will be deeply resented by people who go to dog racing. After all, what is a dog race? It is the working man's form of horse racing. Horse racing has been regarded in the past in this country as a profitable and proper thing, and the highest people in the land have attended meetings of that sort.
The community, in general, has been encouraged to believe that something of this sort is a desirable and proper thing. It is not surprising that people who have not the leisure of those who can attend horse racing, are using their opportunities for leisure to attend similar events.
I understand, from Questions raised in Parliament when this matter first came up, that the Home Secretary has some feelings in regard to horse racing. He seems to approve of horse racing, and


he tells us that after he has attended a meeting he comes back invigorated. It is possible that a person who attends a dog race meeting might also find it has some invigorating effect. We must not look at this from a personal point of view. He brought forward other reasons for allowing horse racing, and suggested that it enabled us to obtain £2½ million from dollar communities for the sale of bloodstock. I do not think that argument takes us very far. I suggest that it would be much better if the grain and the labour expended on bringing up bloodstock were used for other purposes. Arguments of that sort are not going to satisfy dog racing enthusiasts who are deprived of what they rightly regard as their sport and recreation, when horse racing is allowed to continue. As soon as opportunity arises, I ask the Government to give further consideration to this whole question of sport, and to get the matter regularised, so there will be no feeling of resentment on the part of any section of the community that there has been any interference with their particular form of sport.

2.54 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: We have listened to a most interesting speech from the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock). There was, I think, a conflict of loyalty in the hon. Member's breast, and I congratulate him on his performance. There is a lot of dog racing in his constituency, and he was evidently in great fear of—

Mr. Braddock: There is no dog racing allowed in my constituency. A track was built, but the local council would not allow it to operate.

Mr. Nicholson: Then, there is apparently a lot of support for dog racing in his constituency. It was apparent that he wished to keep in with his constituents as well as with his Chief Whip, and I am sure he succeeded admirably in doing both of these things. The Home Secretary said that we had a Government which was different from any other Government. We think it is different. He thinks it is a better Government than any before, and we think it is a worse Government. The only contribution this Government have made in this Himalayan economic crisis is to introduce the Double Summer Time Act and to put restrictions on midweek sport. It is absolutely astounding.

We cannot let this Bill, small as it may be, go through without proclaiming to the country that these are the only Measures which the Government have taken within a few weeks of the publication of the momentous White Paper. I ask hon. Members to ponder on this, and to explain it to their constituents during the weekend. The honest truth about this Measure is that it is a silly little Bill, and I am sorry that the Home Secretary has had to introduce it. I do not think the Bill matters very much. I hold no brief for or against dog racing. Like many hon. Members, I have only once been to a dog race meeting, where, I think, I won a few shillings, which is unusual as I am usually a loser.
I do not think this Bill is of any great importance, and my first protest against it is that the Government are seeking to take it through all its stages in one day. This Bill links up with the other proposed restrictions on mid-week sport. The Government are making a profound psychological error in their approach. If people do not want to work and do not want to keep regular time, we shall not make them work and make them keep regular time by tinkering with the sports and amusements in which they indulge when they are away from work. If dog racing is suppressed on Wednesday evenings, it will only drive people to the cinemas, or to some other form of amusement—they may try coursing, or any other perfectly harmless amusement. The fact is that the Government will be driven by this policy, one after the other to shut down the alternative forms of amusement, until there will be nothing left for people but to sit at home and twiddle their thumbs.
We have not heard a word from the Minister of Labour, or from the Minister of Fuel and Power—only from the poor, dear Home Secretary. How well I remember the Home Secretary coming down to my constituency during the General Election, making a dignified but fiery speech in which he promised a new world to the electors. I wonder if he will honour us with his presence at the next election and come and speak to us, and whether he will say how proud he is of this great Measure; the people of Surrey have a great affection for the Home Secretary, and we will try not to make a bigger fool of him than we can help. This Bill is unworthy of the Government. The Bill


is based on a wrong approach to the problem. We shall not make people want to work more by curtailing their amusements, and to think that we can is a fundamental psychological error. The House is being made rather ridiculous by this matter being treated so seriously. The Bill has been in our hands barely 48 hours before this discussion, and it is to be rushed through as if it was a Measure of major importance. I suppose there will be a Closure Motion, and all the rest, to get it through all its stages. It is all rather silly, but it is just what I would expect from the Government, although not from my right hon. Friend.

2.59 p.m.

Mr. Ede: If I may speak again, I would make an appeal to the House that we should come to a decision on the Second Reading fairly quickly. I hope that in doing so I may be allowed to reply to some of the points that have been raised. This is not a Measure which deals, one way or the other, with the problem of betting. I think the amount of betting, as far as spreading it over areas is concerned, may be slightly restricted, because where a number of local licensing authorities are close together it is possible so to stagger midweek meetings as to provide people with greyhound racing meetings practically every night of the week, and that will not be possible, of course, under this Bill. That is the only way, so far as I know, in which betting is either restricted or aided by this Measure. But I do not want to be drawn into any discussion of gambling or betting. I take the view myself that, in this matter, as in a good many other things, it all depends on whether it is indulged in to excess or not, or has harmful effects through the example of one person indulging in it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) asked me about the extent to which we have received complaints. I can say this, that both the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the Ministry of Supply have been told by the people who represent them in the different parts of the country that midweek sport does tend to interfere with production. I think it goes without saying that, when we have some of these huge crowds that attend this and similar sports, it must inevitably be the case. In the earlier part of his speech my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr.

Braddock) emphasised the full effect of that. It is not merely the question of the man who stops away from work. He is part of a team, and his absenteeism makes other people's work less productive than it would be were he also at work. There is a further thing, that when he returns, for the next two or three days there are bound to be certain conversations and arguments going on as to the effect of his absenteeism, and its effect on the earning capacity, on occasions, of the people who did turn up to work.
The only reason for this Bill being brought before the House is, as I said before, that this is the one pastime that is regulated by legislation. I met the football people, both Association and Rugby, together; I met the greyhound racing people with the speedway and ice hockey people, who very largely come into the same category, apart from this question of legislation; and I met the other interests whom I interviewed separately from them. The greyhound racing people accepted quite willingly the arguments that we put in front of them as to the national need of this Measure. I wish I could have left it to them, as I have left it to the Football Associations; because these adjustments can be made locally in a way that is a great deal more satisfactory than is possible when one has to have regard to legislation. In so far as I was forced to legislate, I had to have regard to what would be the best and simplest way of securing the result I desired.
I want to say about the speech, the sincere and admirable speech, of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish). that it is no use this party, or any other party, going to working class people or to any other class of society in this country and saying that we are going to get out of the difficulties that two wars in one generation have caused for us, plus such other difficulties as may be apportioned by different people to different causes, without making very substantial sacrifices of our usual ordered way of life. I have seen the Jockey Club. They are probably, I think, even more capable of enforcing their views on the people in the country with whom they deal than even this House is.
They have very arbitrary powers which they exercise on occasion very arbitrarily. I asked them, on the instructions of the Government, to arrange that all the im-


portant racing fixtures should be held on Saturday afternoons, and, without leaving the room, they agreed that the Grand National should be held on Saturday afternoon, and next morning they agreed that the Chester Cup and Manchester Cup should also be held on Saturday afternoons. They are able to do it, and, what is more, they are able to enforce their views on the racecourse executives in the most severe fashion if the racecourse executives take a contrary view. If the Greyhound Racing Association had made the recommendation that we and they agreed was appropriate, that would have been advising their local organisations to break the Act of 1934. It is merely because the Act of 1934 is on the Statute Book that we have to come to the House for this particular legislation.

Mr. Guy: Would my right hon Friend allow me? He has given the reasons about the Act of 1934 concerning greyhound tracks, but does he appreciate the fact that there are thousands of transport workers who have to go to work on different schedules and who are carrying other people about to various sporting activities, which are denied to themselves?

Mr. Nicholson: And not only transport workers.

Mr. Ede: That goes back to what I said just now in answer to the hon. Member for Rotherhithe. We cannot, in these times, expect to be able to enjoy all those quite reasonable amenities which, in ordinary times, I would be the very first to defend if they were attacked. Either this country is in a very difficult position with regard to production or it is not, and I gathered that, if there was one thing upon which the House was unanimous, it was that a difficult situation, in fact, an unprecedentedly difficult situation, exists, There may be differences as to the causes, there may even be differences as to the probable duration of that difficulty, but, while it exists, I think the Government of the country, who are being continually asked to give a lead to the country, must, on some of these purely social issues, ask all sections of the community to make the necessary sacrifices for a limited period of time to enable them to meet the situation that has been created.
On any Measure that affects this kind of thing, I speak with some feeling, be-

cause I am a great believer myself that reasonable recreation is a very necessary part of maintaining the physique and the morale of the people of this country. I prefer to see them participating in recreation, rather than being merely spectators, but I realise that it is not possible for everybody to participate. I have purposely limited this Bill in duration of time so that, if it is necessary to ask for its extension, it can only be done by the express sanction of the House in another Measure, and I have taken steps whereby, if it is possible to dispense with it, I can do so by means of an Order which, I am quite sure, it would be the wish of the House to confirm. I hope the House will now be prepared to agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.

3.9 p.m.

Commander Noble: I only want to say a few words, but having the honour to represent a London constituency, I have had considerable correspondence on the subject, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) will agree that though I am a Conservative I have some duty towards those people in my constituency in this respect. I should like to take up and follow the point that he has raised, that in my constituency the closing day is Thursday, a point emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson). Why should not these people be able to enjoy their Thursday afternoons and also evenings when they have finished their work by going to the greyhounds? Why are they not able to enjoy their well earned spare time both on their Thursday off and other times? We on this side of the House are pledged to support the Government in any reasonable actions which they may take to increase production, but we are not confident that the spread of this over the country, will, in fact, do that. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) asked for more information on this question, and as evidence he quoted the same view given by the Lord President of the Council during the war. Would it not be possible in some areas such as my constituency to have a local inquiry between local industry, employers, and trade unions to go into this matter? We have no evidence on this point, and I think the House is entitled to it. It was cartooned in the Press recently that the recent three-day Debate on our economic


affairs only gave birth to a mouse; I think hon. Members on all sides of the House will agree that it certainly has not started a hare.

3.11 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I was very disappointed with the Home Secretary's second speech. He had been asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) to give the evidence upon which he relied in the statement he made that mid-week sport interfered with production. I believe that I understand the Home Secretary well enough to know that he, at any rate, unlike a good many of his colleagues, does not like interfering with the liberties of the individual without good reason. The right hon. Gentleman very conspicuously failed to do more than repeat what was obviously hearsay evidence on this subject, and his air of distraction at the moment is an indication of his discomfort. It is not fair to himself or to individuals to interfere with the liberty of individuals without sufficient cause being shown. If there were any real substantial interference with production there would necessarily be evidence available. One really cannot proceed and legislate through the House of Commons simply on vague rumours of this sort, and as the Home Secretary failed to respond to the perfectly clear questions of my right hon. Friend, I think the House must be driven to the conclusion that there is nothing except a certain amount of rumour to support this view. I was surprised at the attack which the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) saw fit to make on a certain class of workers in this country. After all, we have had no less a person than the Prime Minister making an appeal in the last 48 hours to people to work hard. Unlike the hon. Member for Mitcham, I do not accept that that appeal will necessarily fail unless it is supported by penal legislation of this sort.

Mr. Braddock: If the hon. Member spent a little time in visiting workshops and factories and seeing the actual conditions going on, he would not talk such arrant nonsense.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Mitcham for his habitual courtesy. I can only say in reply that it so happens I visit the workshops and factories in my constituency rather

more frequently than he does in his, and the difference in our experiences must be due to the fact that, out of the mouth of the hon. Member for Mitcham, absenteeism and idleness are rife in Mitcham. I hope that the hon. Member's constituents will appreciate the tribute he has seen fit to pay to them.
I am glad and proud to say that the same is not true in my own constituency. The point, surely, is this: Is it the right method to obtain increased production by denying people a form of entertainment which they wish to attend? I, like a good many of my hon. Friends, am completely bored by attendance at greyhound meetings, and I profoundly hope that it will not be my dreary experience to have to go to one for many years to come. But it is the fact that a great many people disagree with us, and enjoy them. The issue of principle which this Bill raises is whether we increase production and steady time-keeping at work by denying people their enjoyment. That, surely, is the point. I say to hon. Members opposite that, if they take that view—and they cannot support this Bill without taking that view—why are they not logical and consistent, and why do they close down not only mid-week sport but mid-week cinemas, and public houses in the middle of the week? Why do they not deny to the unfortunate people of this country every form of entertainment which appeals to them?

Mr. Nicholson: All in good time. Leave it till next Session.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend says, "Leave it till next Session." I do not know whether the present Government and their majority will be here then. Either the Government treat the people of this country like adults who can be relied upon to work because they regard it as their duty to their country to do so, or the Government treat them like silly children who have to be fended off from every form of enjoyment lest they be distracted by that enjoyment from doing their duty. Hon. Members opposite must really make up their minds where they stand. Are they standing for this business of driving people to work because there is nothing else to do, or are they not? Even assuming the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and of those of his supporters who, unlike the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish), are going


to support this Bill, to be that it is necessary to deprive the people of this country of enjoyment to get them to work at all, this Bill is a singularly clumsy method of doing it. First of all, 'why is it necessary to prohibit mid-week greyhound racing in the evenings? This House has recently passed a Measure under which, as from towards the end of next month, there will be double summer time. It will be possible for greyhound meetings to be held on every night of the week in daylight after normal factories have closed down.

Mr. Robens: What about the double shifts that we are trying to introduce?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I entirely agree that that would interfere with the late shifts, but, surely, the hon. Member is not suggesting that sport must be closed down on any day at any hour at which anybody is working? If he is suggesting that, this Bill would have to go much further and would have to prohibit greyhound racing at any time. The hon. Member must preserve a certain amount of proportion. Why is it not possible to allow evening meetings during the period of double summer time?

Mr. Paget: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of logic, has he never heard of the proposition that part of a cake is sometimes preferable to no cake at all?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As one who, like his fellow countrymen, has had to suffer under the ministrations of the Ministry of Food, I have every reason to appreciate the truth of the hon. Gentleman's proposition. I accept the proposition that part of a cake is better than no cake, in support of my argument that week-day meetings are better than no week-day meetings at all. I adopt the helpful proposition of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will recollect that yesterday he answered a Question of mine on the subject of certain areas in this country in which an appreciable proportion of the population take their half-day's holiday on a day other than a Saturday.
There is no provision in this Bill to deal with those areas at all. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman, in his habitually

courteous way, acknowledged that he could not do it because it was technically difficult under legislation. That is an argument against legislation of this kind. If he cannot adapt it—and really, of course, he could perfectly well adapt it by giving some form of local option; it is not beyond the technical capacity of his advisers so to draft a clause—does he realise that the effect of these provisions in these areas is to deprive people of their legitimate half day on their holidays, and, on the other hand, to tempt them to absenteeism on Saturday afternoons when they ought to be at work? He will leave these people with a sense of unfairness themselves, and will increase those very fears that this sport will cause absenteeism, which I take to be the motive behind this Bill. This is an extremely clumsy way of dealing with the matter.
As far as I recollect, the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt through inadvertence, did not tell the House that the provisions contained in this Bill are already in force by a side wind. There is "Statutory Rule and Order 446 of 1947," which is signed" E. Shinwell, under which no power can be used for greyhound meetings except on Saturdays and statutory holidays. The right hon. Gentleman made some play with saying that this change could not be effected without legislation; that he could not go to the Greyhound Racing Association and urge them to do this voluntarily. He seemed to suggest thereby that it could only be done by this Bill. But his colleague the Minister of Fuel and Power—whether with his knowledge or not I do not know—has effected precisely this result by a side wind.

Mr. Ede: No, not quite. The effect of this Bill is to do what we could not do by Order, namely, to allow the greyhound racing tracks to have a double meeting on Saturday. That cannot be done by Order.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully appreciate that. The effect, therefore, of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention is, as I understand it, that his colleague the Minister of Fuel and Power has done this thing in a way which the Home Secretary himself regards as undesirable. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pass on that comment to the Minister of Fuel and Power, with the endorsement of the House.

Mr. Ede: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member when he is enjoying himself so much, but that Order was necessary in order to restrict greyhound racing in the middle of the week. That Order was passed with my knowledge; I might almost say at my request. It enabled me to help the greyhound racing people until I could get this Bill. The original Order destroyed the weekend meetings, which I am anxious to give people; but the second Order completely kills greyhound racing on those tracks which do not have Saturday as one of the fixed days.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not use the expression "help the greyhound racing people" deliberately, because he has gone on to say that, in fact, he has destroyed racing on those tracks not licensed for Saturday racing. This Order does not help greyhound racing people. Surely, it is designed to do the exact opposite? I take it that the result of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention is that this Order would be withdrawn as soon as the Bill became law? The right hon. Gentleman does not dissent?

Mr. Ede: No.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is obviously an unsatisfactory provision, though I am, of course, reassured to know that its unsatisfactoriness is shared between the Home Secretary and the Minister of Fuel and Power. Finally, I ask the hon. Members opposite whether they think that this further restriction upon the pleasures of their constituents is really justified? They will have to answer to those constituents, who, heaven knows, are having a bad enough time at the moment.

Mr. Braddock: How does the hon. Member know?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Unlike the hon. Gentleman opposite, I am in touch with my constituents, who are having a thoroughly bad time at the moment. This will mean one further restriction of their pleasures. It has been done without the slightest evidence of any real necessity for it and, I suppose, can be justified only as being wholly consistent with the present Government's policy of equality in misery.

Mr. Austin: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As I do not intend to endeavour to catch your eye at this late stage may I ask your guidance? My only objection to

the Bill is that it admits juveniles into greyhound racing tracks. I understand that if I were to raise that it would be out of Order. I understand that it would also be out of Order if I were to ask for a provision to exclude juveniles on an Adjournment Debate. Can you give me any guidance as to how I could raise the point?

Mr. Speaker: I should have to think the matter over before I could give the hon. Member any guidance.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Michael Stuart.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Temporary limitation of dog racecourse betting on Saturdays to after 1.0 p.m.)

3.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, to leave out "one in the afternoon," and to insert "twelve noon."
When he moved the Second Reading of this Bill, the Home Secretary told us that he had intended originally to fix the hour at two o'clock, but had then been in conversation with the greyhound racing authorities and that they had compromised with the hour of one o'clock.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): indicated dissent.

Sir C. Headlam: I may be wrong, but that is what I understood, and I am moving this Amendment because I am assured by many correspondents on the North-East coast that it would be a boon to workers in general if the hour Were fixed at 12 noon rather than at one o'clock, for various reasons, such as changes in shifts and the fact that some workers are able to get away earlier. I am also informed that in some stadiums which have football grounds attached it would make it easier to cater for the public at large if a little more time were allowed.
I move the Amendment, therefore, in order that the Home Secretary may explain to the Committee why he has fixed this particular hour and what the objection is to making it 12 noon instead of one o'clock. I have no doubt that he has reasons, but I should be very much obliged if he could give them to the Committee in order that we may be able to satisfy those who write to us as to the real reasons which are influencing the Home Secretary in this matter. I am not, myself, a frequenter of dog racing; I have never been to a meeting in my life, but there are so many people who ho do go and who appreciate them that I think that everything should be done to make the loss of them as light as possible for such people. If it would be better for them to make the hour 12 noon instead of one o'clock I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to gratifying their wishes.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Royle: I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will not accept this Amendment. The right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir C. Headlam) suggested that this change would be a boon to the workers. It may be a boon to those who desire to attend a dog track, but it will not be a boon to those who do not desire to go to a track. I am concerned about the workers who wish to get home when the pressure on transport is at its heaviest on a Saturday, and I should have preferred to have seen the word "two" inserted, instead of "one," so that workers who did not desire to attend a dog track could get home in reasonable comfort.

Mr. Ede: I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. As I explained to the House on the Second Reading, in the original draft of the Bill I had inserted "two o'clock," mainly for the reasons which have just been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle). I endeavoured to meet the wishes of greyhound racing proprietors, because they had been generous to me in meeting the suggestions I made to them, but if I were to go back to 12 o'clock I should not merely be incurring the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford, but it might also mean that people working the half-day on Saturday would be

tempted to stay away altogether, or leave at 11 or 11.30 in the morning in order to be at the dog track at noon. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will support me in my decision.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider this Amendment. He considers that this Measure is vitally important, and is trying to get it through in one day. I imagine it will have to go through in one day in another place. On this matter I have been approached by the proprietors of the greyhound track in my constituency, who feel strongly about it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this Amendment, with a view to inserting it in another place if he changes his mind. I would also like to ask him whether he consulted the Greyhound Patrons' Association. The adoption of this Amendment will not necessarily mean that people will get to a dog track earlier. In a way, it would relieve a certain amount of the congestion at one o'clock, and would also enable people to place their bets earlier.

Captain Marsden: I take it that this is only permissive, and that if in some parts of the country it is found more convenient to open a track at noon it will be opened at that time, because the people concerned wish it to be opened at that time?

Mr. Ede: This legislation deals with betting, and not with racing. That is one of the anomalies about this matter. We appear to be dealing with racing, but we are, in fact, dealing with the facilities for betting. Acceptance of this Amendment would mean that betting could commence at noon, although racing may not start until two or three o'clock. I suggest to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), whose kindly references to me earlier I appreciate, that before he pledges himself too much to this Amendment he should consult the Aldershot and District Traction Company, who have to deal with bus traffic in his constituency. I regret very much that I am unable to accept this Amendment, for the reasons that I have already given.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not intend to trouble the


Committee for more than a few moments, but, as hon. Members will see, Subsections (2) and (3) of this Clause contain a shifting of the onus in the case of possible criminal prosecution for breach. I appreciate that the proviso of Subsection (2) enables the occupier of a track to escape, if he proves his ignorance of the breach by some other person. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would say something as to the necessity for this shifting of the onus. I am sure that the Committee will not wish a provision of this sort to be inserted in the Bill unless there is some good reason for it, unless it is clearly unenforceable by any other means. In the absence of any explanation from the Minister, it would be wrong for the Committee to pass this Clause, which would make the occupier of a track criminally liable for the offence of some other person. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman can offer us some reassurance on this point.

Mr. Ede: I am advised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels)—and it has since been confirmed from another quarter—that this Clause re-enacts the same provision as was in the original Act. In so far as the onus is on these people, it was so in the original Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Duration, of this Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Osbert Peake: This Clause enables the Home Secretary, by Order in Council, to bring the Act to an end at an earlier date than June, 1948. The main issue before us today has, I think, been a practical one, whether this Bill will prove efficacious. Has mid-week sport decreased production? The converse question therefore arises: will this Bill tend to increase production? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who has satisfied himself—although not me—that midweek sport has decreased production, will undertake to keep a careful watch on the effects of this Measure. I hope he will give us an undertaking that he will examine the returns which he may get from different parts of the country—and I

hope he will ask for such returns—as to the effect of this Bill on production. If he finds that it is not doing what it sets out to do, then I hope he will make an Order in Council to bring it to an end. If we could be given an assurance that he will keep his eye on the effects of this Measure, and withdraw it immediately if it is found to be inefficacious for the purpose for which it is designed, then I am sure that the further stages of the Bill will be acceptable.

Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the promise he has just given in his last few words. I intend to watch this matter carefully, and I think I can go even a little further than he pressed me to go. If I find that the time has come when we need no longer ask those people who can rearrange their sports voluntarily to bring pressure to bear on their supporters to restrict their sports to Saturdays, then I think it would be incumbent upon me to make an Order repealing the further administration of this Measure. I am very anxious that it should not be thought that greyhound racing has been singled out in any particular way, because of the feelings which some people may have in regard to it. After all, opinions change quite rapidly on this kind of thing. My grandfather was expelled from the Congregational Church because he secured the contract for painting the racecourse on Epsom Downs.

Mr. Nicholson: Did he paint it red?

Mr. Ede: No, white. He was born in the constituency of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). There are very deep and bitter feelings occasionally on matters of this kind, and I would make it quite clear that the Government in promoting this Measure have not taken sides one way or the other on the issues that so disturb some people about this particular pastime.

Mr. Nicholson: I do not think that anyone will accuse the Government of persecuting greyhound racing interests, as distinct from any other sporting interests. No one, I am sure, on this side of the House will try to make that a party point against the Government. I was, however, very much disturbed the other day, when the Prime Minister used the words, "if and when", when referring to concessions and restorations with regard to electricity cuts. He showed an attitude of mind


rather different from that of the right hon. Gentleman today, and we are seriously concerned with what we consider is a wrong psychological approach to these matters. We believe that this is a hardship Bill, and that the sooner these restrictions are lifted the better. The right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind as to the minimum time he thinks these restrictions ought to endure, and has extended the time limit to the date mentioned in the Clause by Order in Council. I hope that this Clause goes through as drafted, and that the Home Secretary will keep a watchful eye on the whole question.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE—(Exemption of holiday resorts.)

Provided that His Majesty may by Order in Council exempt from the provisions of this Act, or any part thereof, any area which can be mainly classified as a holiday resort.—[Mr. Carson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Carson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause stands in the name of myself, the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson), the hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson) and other hon. Members. I hope that the Home Secretary will see his way to accept it, or, at any rate, to give it his sympathetic consideration. As I have already said, the object of the Bill is to persuade people to work; but people who work and work hard need a good and decent holiday at least once a year. They need a holiday which they can wholly enjoy, and I submit that they have a right to the sort of holiday they want. What sort of holiday do they want? The sort of holiday that they want may be very diverse as applied to different people. For instance, holidays at the seaside have many attractions. First—somewhat naturally—there is the sea and the seashore; secondly, seaside resorts usually have good cinemas and very often amusement parks; and, thirdly, they often have greyhound tracks. These, may I say, are all part of the stock in trade of seaside resorts. Holidays provide the bread and

butter of the holiday resorts. If we cannot attract the holidaymakers to our area, we simply do not exist at all, and, therefore, we do not want anything to be done that can detract from the amenities offered by holiday resorts.
I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman cannot remove the sea and the seashore. We are beginning to wonder whether he could not possibly put back the barbed wire which we saw during the war on the seashore, and thus prevent people from using it. But, being reasonable people, we imagine that he will not. We understand that he is going to allow cinemas in those parts of the country, and in other parts, to continue, and we also understand that he is going to allow amusement parks, including scenic railways, and the like, to continue. I have heard no mention from the Government that Dreamland or Merrie England, to quote two places in my own constituency, are going to be banned. If the right hon. Gentleman allows these places to continue—and I may say that people do enjoy them once a year; indeed, I go to these places, and enjoy going down those horrible dives on the scenic railway—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member is getting completely out of Order. I really do not think that the dogs would be able to use the scenic railway.

Mr. Carson: I apologise, Mr. Beaumont. I should have thought that the dogs might enjoy these amenities, knowing how they go over the hurdles in their own particular sport. But, nevertheless, I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should consider shutting down the greyhound tracks in coastal resorts except on Saturdays. There are a great many people in this country who like what I believe is known as "a greyhound holiday." They tick off on their fingers what amenities they can get at the various resorts, at, say, Margate or Ramsgate, and, among them, they include greyhound racing. But now, if they go to Margate or Ramsgate, or anywhere else, they will find that they can only go to a greyhound meeting on Saturdays.
I would assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if he accepts this new Clause, there will be no danger of industry being affected in any way. In my own area


we have no industries to speak of. We wish we had more, and I have on several occasions in the past endeavoured in this House to get industries set up in the Isle of Thanet. It is true that there are a few miners living in my constituency, but they number less than a thousand, while, on the other hand, the holidaymakers who come to the area number many thousands. I cannot see why the holidaymakers should be penalised in order to make certain that no miner leaves his employment on a day when he should be working.
I would also say that there is no question of greyhound tracks attracting vital labour in this connection. There are 4,000 unemployed people in my area, and, while we have that number of unemployed, and when, apparently the Government are unable to employ these people elsewhere, I cannot see that this suggestion can be defended. This new Clause has been drawn in very wide terms and is what I would call an enabling Clause. It enables the Home Secretary to do certain things; it forces him to do nothing, but it allows him, if he sees fit, to continue greyhound racing in certain areas of the country at certain times of the year, entirely at his own discretion. I hope that he will give consideration to the Clause, and will see his way to accepting it.

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: I raised this point on the Second Reading of the Bill and set out what I thought were the arguments for the seaside resorts. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not allow this opportunity to pass without giving us a, reasonable reply. I would draw his attention to the point which I raised yesterday about these facilities when he said:
If … the holiday resorts were unable to make the necessary arrangements with the association controlling that particular sport, I should be very happy to do what I could to see that matters were sorted out properly "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 568.]
The proposed new Clause is purely permissive. We are proposing to give the right hon. Gentleman power to use it if he thinks he should have it.

Mr. Ede: The Bill does not reduce the capacity of any area to supply greyhound racing. All it does is to alter the days on which greyhound racing can take

place. Therefore, a person sitting down and ticking off the amusements in the way suggested by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) will not say: "Margate, greyhound racing, Thursday; Blackpool, greyhound racing, Friday. As I believe that Friday should be a day of fast I will, therefore, give it to Margate." We are not giving any preference as between one holiday resort and another.
The difficulty is that most holiday resorts are within very reasonable distance of some highly industrial areas. I do not know whether my constituency is a holiday resort or an industrial area. It has the best free pier in the country. I very much doubt whether anyone can say whether it is an area in which industry is not also being carried on to a very highly specialised extent. I very much regret, much as I would like to do what I can to ease the difficulties confronting hon. Members, that I cannot accept the proposed new clause.

Mr. Peake: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to accept the Clause. I see his difficulty about the definition of "mainly holiday resorts," but would he please consider before the Bill goes to another place whether it is not desirable to insert a proviso to bring the operation of the Bill to an end, not generally, but in particular areas? Customs as regards holidays and half-holidays vary all over the country. The right hon. Gentleman may well find that there will be areas where two meetings on a Saturday will do more to stop production than a meeting in mid-week. If the right hon. Gentleman takes power to terminate the Act, and then goes on to terminate any section of it, he might also consider having power to terminate its operation as regards specified areas.

Mr. Ede: I considered that point upon the draft of the Bill. In response to the appeal by the right hon. Gentleman, I undertake to have another look at it before the Bill is examined in another place.

Mr. Challen: The proposed new Clause is very reasonable and I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept it. Did it occur to him in considering the draft of the Bill that it might be a very elegant ornament to this Measure? It gives the Home Secretary complete power to do what he likes. If it is considered desirable and


necessary in any particular area to make an exemption in certain cases, he can do so. It gives him power to meet all the criticisms which have been made on both sides of the House during Second Reading. It has been pointed out that in the case of the Greyhound Racing Association, we cannot act as in the case of other sports. No doubt that is true, but this Clause gives the Home Secretary the same liberty as he would have had if this had been a case where there was no necessity for legislation. The Home Secretary should consider modifying the Bill at some suitable stage to this extent. There is hardly a Member who has confessed to having been to a greyhound racing meeting. I have not been to a meeting, and I do not think I ever shall. I have no interest in greyhound racing, and it is not a sport which appeals to me. I have had a good deal of correspondence from people who feel they are being treated very hardly in this matter. This is a Clause which enables the Home Secretary to mitigate that hardship very substantially if he wishes.

Mr. Carson: In view of what the Home Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Nicholson: The Home Secretary must realise that we now have him at our mercy. If he will get up in his place and say he considers this Bill a major contribution to the solution of our industrial difficulties, I will resume my seat.

Mr. Ede: I have never suggested that it is a major solution. It is a proper and appropriate step.

Mr. Nicholson: Such is my esteem for the right hon. Gentleman, that I will resume my Seat in the hope that he will now get his Bill.

Captain John Crowder: In view of the fact that people will in future be attending meetings in large numbers on Saturdays, will the Home Secretary see that there are sufficient police to control the crowds, and that the stands are sufficient to take the extra people?

Mr. Ede: I have already consulted the Commissioner of Police in regard to that. I thank the House for the courtesy they have shown me this afternoon.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Marlowe, a copy of which Order was presented on 19th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Felixstowe, a copy of which Order was presented on 19th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Ellesmere Port, a copy of which Order was presented on 19th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Brixham, a copy of which Order was presented on 19th March, be approved."—[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — DISABLED PERSONS, N.E. DEVELOPMENT AREA

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

4.02 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I wish to raise the urgent and pressing problem of unemployment among disabled persons in the North-Eastern Development Area. This is part, I should make clear, of the general problem of unemployment which is facing us in that area. We did discuss on Monday this week the general issue, and we came to the general conclusion that the slowness in factory construction was the main contributory factor to this unemployment at the moment. Unemployment, by itself, is a tragedy; but when to unemployment we also add disablement, it is, indeed, a double tragedy.
If we examine the scope of unemployment in the North-East today, we shall see that the total number of registered disabled persons at 20th January, 1947, was 54,631, and of those 8,972 were unemployed. For the whole country the proportion of unemployed to those on the register is 10 per cent. But it should be borne in mind that in the North-East the proportion is 16.5 per cent. Of our total unemployed in the North-East the disabled represent something like 18 per cent. It is impossible to say exactly how many of these are industrially disabled, and how many are disabled as a result of war service, but it is quite clear that, in an industrial area such as ours, there must be a very high proportion of men who are capable only of light work.
The figures for January show that in the region there are 2,282 coal miners unemployed; but the vast majority of these will never see a coal mine again—not, at least, to work in one; they are miners who, by reason of some disability, are now fit only for light work. The fact that the slowness of factory construction delays the introduction of light work is a serious handicap to those men. At Stockton Employment Exchange on 9th December there were 119 insured men who had been continuously unemployed for more than six months, and there were a further 111 who had been out of work for 12 months. I do not know how many of these are on the register, but the bulk of them must be men capable only of light work. I have not the exact figures, but I am informed that 19 per cent. of the total number of unemployed men on Teesside and Cleveland are classed as unskilled light labourers, and that a further 17 per cent. are registered as disabled persons, a total of 36 per cent. unfit for anything but light work.
These figures, in my opinion, stress beyond any argument the urgent necessity for the speedy introduction of alternative light employment in the region. The question I want to ask my hon. Friend is, What can his Department do about it? Under the Act of 1944, they have four main strings to their bow. First of all, by the quota system, they can introduce these disabled men into industry; then, by vocational training, they can rehabilitate them and fit them into normal employment; then, by designation, they can state specified occupations for their em-

ployment; and, finally, those who fit into none of these categories can be found work in sheltered establishments.
First, on the question of the quota, is my hon. Friend satisfied that, in each Region, the quota is being really observed? I know that there are large establishments, such as steel works, where there are as many as 15 per cent. disabled employed, but I also know one large concern which is employing 7½ per cent. disabled, which is much above the quota. There is a general feeling among those now disabled and unemployed that certain employers have men who have been working for a long time registered as disabled men, thereby fulfilling the quota, and, although that is a legitimate thing under the Act, it does seem to be working against the genuine man, ex-Service or otherwise, who is unemployed. Can my hon. Friend say whether he has any evidence that any employers are escaping their duty in this respect, and can he offer any hone of an increase in the quota provision in the near future?
On the question of training facilities, the value of this training and rehabilitation cannot be over-emphasised if we are to enable these men to play their part in the main stream of competitive industry today. I was much impressed myself on a recent visit to the Government Training Centre at Aycliffe, where hundreds of men are being refitted for civilian employment, mainly in the building trades, but I must say that I was somewhat disappointed by the small number of disabled at that centre, and I would like my hon. Friend to say whether there is sufficient priority given to the disabled ex-Servicemen in these Government training centres. Then, again, can my hon. Friend say how many men have passed through the training centres in the North-East, how many are in training and what waiting list there is? I am given to understand that there is insufficient training capacity for these men at the present time.
One other point on training centres. It is all very well to train these disabled men for manual occupations, but there are many of them who are totally unfitted to follow, say, the building industry. Is the Minister sure that, in the Northern Region, there is adequate provision made for people who want to follow a professional or clerical occupation? I believe that there is one course in Middlesbrough


at which 24 people are taking a shorthand-typing clerical course, but I hope we shall further extend these facilities in the region.
On the question of sheltered employment, it is probably the most heartening thing we can do for the disabled man. Let me quote a letter which I have had from a one-legged ex-Serviceman, who has been placed in employment through the working of the Disabled Persons Act. He says:
I have been put to work in the rolling mill in a steelworks. It is extremely hot, and my limbs sweat and breakout. I have to go through a badly-lighted works, and it is dangerous for me. The job itself is absolutely 'blind alley,' but I will stick it until I can get something from which I can learn something. Can you please tell me what the chances are of a job at a new factory of the Disabled Persons Employment Corporation? 
It seems to me that these "Remploy" factories must cater for very difficult cases which cannot find their way to progress in normal industry. Can my hon. Friend say what provisions are being made in the North-East to provide these sheltered occupations?
I know there is one such factory scheduled for Newcastle, and one for Stockton-on-Tees in the near future. But I believe that there are very great delays in the preparation of these factories. I do not know whether there is any difficulty on the raw materials side, but it does seem that it will be one or two months at least before any men are placed in these "Remploy" factories. Could my hon. Friend say exactly what is meant by the official description of the type of work to be given to these men, which is classed as "light handicrafts"? Does that mean the inevitable basket making, brush making and so on? Will there be some really progressive form of employment provided in these factories? Can he say how many men he hopes to cater for in them? Is he satisfied that he will be able to absorb all these severely disabled men within a reasonable period? In this connection, will he take steps to press upon his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the urgent necessity for the completion of all the factories now pending in the area?
In conclusion, I should like to ask my hon. Friend if his Ministry are taking care of the many hundreds of cases of

neurosis and psychosis in the area, for which there seems to be little provision at the present time. Is he satisfied that all the disabled have now registered; or are there many who are chary of registering because they feel they might be placing their jobs in jeopardy, or because they do not want to disclose the nature of their disabilities? Is he satisfied that once a man has been placed in employment there is sufficient follow up to make sure that his services are being used in the right manner? Here, I should like to pay a tribute to his officials in the employment exchanges, and to the most progressive kinds of employers in the areas, who are using scientific methods to see that these men are placed in proper employment, and that satisfactory follow up provision is made.
Let me again quote from a letter which I received from an ex-Serviceman who had served three and a half years in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp. He says:
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we have been demobbed seven months, and up to the present we are still signing the unemployment register. We are also receiving partial disability pensions, in some cases 20, 30 and 40 per cent. We are not asking for charity, but feel that some necessary action should be taken to place us in employment. We feel that if employment can be found for us it would take our minds off the long suffering we have had to undergo.
The next letter I had from him was to the effect that he had been to the Government training centre to train as a builder. The tone of that second letter was so changed that I must put forward his view, that once he knew the Government were taking an interest in the disabled people, and that someone was looking after them, it made a wonderful difference. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary is answering today, because I know of the great interest he has taken in his own South Wales in getting these industrial casualties into some kind of useful employment. I hope he will be able to give us some evidence that his Department are doing their utmost to get these industrially disabled men, as well as ex-Servicemen, into some progressive employment. We must do away with the idea that these disabled men are flotsam and jetsam cast up by the military and industrial tides, who are unable to take their part in the normal productive life of the country. I am quite convinced that the Minister will do


his utmost to provide them with useful work, both in their own interests and in the wider interests of the country.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Robens: There are two points I want to put to my hon. Friend. One is in connection with the extension of the work of the Disabled Persons Employment Corporation. I was troubled when, in reply to a Question which I addressed recently to the Minister of Labour, I was informed that only 264 persons had signed on. The second is; is it the Minister's intention to schedule further occupations for these disabled people? Two have already been scheduled, and I think there should be a survey in order that a list of them could be compiled.

Mr. David Jones: I wish to support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the Teesside and Cleveland area is an area where the major portion of the industry in the past has been of the very heavy type, and the degree of partial disability in those types of industries has been particularly heavy. Large numbers of these people were temporarily employed during the war in munition factories. They felt they were making a contribution and were rehabilitating themselves in the industrial life of the country. That job has now come to an end and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, they have been unemployed for six months or more and feel they are being neglected. If they could he assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that considerable interest is being taken in this matter, and that something will eventuate in the near future, it will give them much satisfaction.

4.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I am sure the problem which has been raised this afternoon is one which is bound to have the greatest possible sympathy from every Member of the House, and the manner in which it has been presented is a credit to my hon. Friends who raised it. It will be very difficult to get into the time at my disposal a general description of the Ministry of Labour's work in connection with disabled persons. If there is one section of the Ministry's work upon which there is the greatest concentration,

with the greatest sympathy, it is this question of employment of disabled persons. One or two questions were put to me, and I would like to deal with them before I touch the general subject.
With regard to the development of the "Remploy" factories, we are advised by the Disabled Persons Employment Corporation that they have this matter entirely in their control by Statute, and we are informed that it is their intention to continue building this type of factory throughout the country until we have provided sheltered employment for all persons requiring it. The second point concerns the scheduling of further occupations. There is at present some doubt with regard to this scheduling process generally. The trouble is that when one schedules a job, it not only stamps the job as a disabled persons' job, but it stamps the worker as a disabled worker and singles him out for some special treatment and, as he thinks, a special recognition of his disablement which has a tendency to create an inferiority complex. The National Advisory Council for Disabled Persons is advising the Ministry, and on that council there are some very distinguished people in this field, such as Sir Brunel Cohen and others, who themselves are disabled and have been great examples of how the disabled can surmount all sorts of difficulties. We have their advice on this matter. It is being kept under active consideration, and we are awaiting their decision on scheduling further jobs solely for disabled persons.
The problem is fairly large, and we must have regard to the size of it. In the North East region I notice that it is a pretty substantial problem. The figures have been given by my hon. Friend the Member' for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and I do not desire to challenge any figure that he has quoted. As they are our own figures, they are correct, as is always the case with the statistics of the Ministry of Labour. What is the source of these disabled persons? Whence do they come? We have disabled men who are ex-Servicemen; we have disabled men who have been disabled in industry; we have others who, in the natural course of events, have become disabled because of natural deficiencies; and we have those who are born disabled. From these four sources we have in the North East Region a very substantial body of disabled persons.


With regard to the numbers which are in employment, we find that a very substantial number of registered disabled persons are in employment. I think the figure is roughly that of the 54,000 registered persons 45,000 are in employment. The others are unemployed.
I have had the figures taken out as to the categories of persons who are unemployed. Those who are capable of ordinary employment total 4,636 ex-Servicemen and 2,849 civilians. With regard to those requiring sheltered employment, 772 were ex-Servicemen and 717 civilians. That is the breakdown for which I was asked. It will be noticed that of those capable of ordinary employment 62 per cent. are ex-Servicemen and of those requiring sheltered employment 54 per cent. are ex-Servicemen. Here is another figure which I am sure the House will be interested to hear. It is that of the disabled persons who are unemployed and require sheltered employment, over 50 per cent. are over 50 years of age. In other words, what happened through this registration is that there is now being disclosed to the country a volume of potential employable persons who were never previously taken into account. It is a singular thing that legislation has brought into view the fact that we have a very substantial section of our community who never had any opportunity of employment in the past. I think the present Foreign Secretary deserves every credit for having brought in this Bill when he was Minister of Labour in the previous Government.
I come now to the sources of occupational openings. There are in the North-East Region a number of heavy industries and there are a substantial number of men from the mining industry, from steel works and from other industry. We have to deal, therefore, with various types of disablement arising from industry as well as from other sources. How do we propose to deal with this problem? There ace four methods, but the most important is to increase the volume of general employment in the area. More important than singling them out individually is to put them together into some factories and then disperse them throughout the working population, thus giving them a chance as ordinary citizens and not conferring on them favours as a condition of earning their own employment.
This matter was covered, I think, on Monday evening in an Adjournment Debate, when an account was given on the potential new employment in the North-East Region, and it was then stated that there would be something like 80,000 openings when the plans had been implemented for the new factories and new employments. Many of those new employments will be employments to which these men could go, and they will be the means of absorbing the main part of these men. The second is inducing employers to adopt their methods to give employment to the unemployed disabled man. It is astonishing what many of these men can do when a machine is adopted to suit them, and many employers are doing great jobs of work in that connection and are entitled to credit for all that they are doing in making the job fit the man instead of the old method of making the man fit the job.
The next point will interest hon. Members. With regard to those disabled in the mining industry, we have asked that the restriction on men who had compensation shall be removed and that they may be allowed to go back into industry. With regard to men disabled in the mining industry, I think this will be a very substantial contribution. Again, we have also pressed the Coal Board that they themselves should voluntarily designate certain jobs for men who have been disabled in the mines, and this is additional to the agreement. The third point concerns miners with chest diseases. It has been suggested that all the ancillary appointments controlled by the Coal Board on the farms and so on, such as messengers, chauffeurs, and clerks, should be given as far as possible to men who are incapable of work in the industry but whose condition was caused by the industry. We are doing that more and more so that the industry itself shall use men who were previously thrown on to the backs of other employers or had to be maintained by the State.
I come now to the question of training the disabled. Let me say at once that they are in fact receiving their proportion of training. I had the figure by me a moment ago and the number is quite a reasonable one—I think 13.4 per cent. of the places in the training centres are now occupied by disabled persons. At the same time I would ask my hon. Friends and the disabled persons themselves to


realise that in the construction of the "Remploy" factories in the north-east area we must have more bricklayers to do the building, and we have therefore had to give a rather larger proportion of the jobs to fit men who can play their part in this actual work of building the factories which will employ the disabled persons. In that respect we have had to phase the training. It is a matter for regret, but it is no use training disabled men first and then afterwards training the lit men to build the factories in which the disabled men are to find employment.
With regard to the special factories under the Disabled Persons' Corporation—the "Remploy" factories—negotiations are in hand for building them at Sunderland, Blyth, Consett, Jarrow, Durham and West Hartlepool. I know there has been delay but these "Remploy" factories must be erected on central sites which are easily accessible and fairly flat. The factory has to be built on one floor since it is useless to expect cripples to climb stairs. It will also be appreciated that these areas have almost all been mined for coal so that there is not only the difficulty of the geological conformation of the district, but also the fact that very many of the flat sites have been undermined and subsidence is very prevalent. That has been the cause of much of the delay in connection with the acquisition of suitable sites for the establishment of these factories.
In the time at my disposal I think I have covered most of the ground and dealt with the points that have been raised. I do not want again to be charged with

avoiding points raised in Debate. With regard to the one-legged man who has been placed in employment in a steel rolling mill, I assure my hon. Friend that he will not be prejudiced in his chance of employment in a "Remploy" factory. As for the enforcement of the quota, the Ministry is now carrying out spot investigations, and I think it is as well that the country should know that by and large employers have played the game in making 3 per cent. of their employment possibilities available for disabled persons. There are other employers who are dodging this and using all sorts of methods for doing so, but, as I have said, the Ministry is now conducting investigations in order to discover whether employers are carrying out their legal obligations. In cases where there has been a deliberate attempt to avoid them, very serious steps will be taken and the full rigour of the law will be imposed. The fact remains that we have had very little cause for complaint in general, and most decent employers are employing more than the 3 per cent.
Finally, I should like to revert to the first point I made—that the employment of disabled persons depends, in my view, on our increasing general employment possibilities in the employment areas and it is to the more vigorous development of our factory programme in those areas to which we must look for the salvation of these disabled persons.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes past Four o'Clock.